Gaber, A. Osama

Significance Statement There is no standardized desensitization regimen for kidney transplant candidates. CD38, expressed by plasma cells, could be targeted for desensitization to deplete plasma cells producing alloantibodies and donor-specific antibodies. Few studies and case reports are available regarding the use of CD38 antibodies for desensitization in patients awaiting kidney transplant. This study shows that isatuximab, a CD38-targeting therapy, was well tolerated in kidney transplant candidates, with a durable decrease in anti-HLA antibodies and partial desensitization activity. The short treatment period and long follow-up of this study allowed for the understanding of the mechanism and timing for any antibody rebound. Isatuximab could be further investigated as an option for adjunct therapy to existing desensitization for patients on the kidney transplant waitlist. Background Patients with calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) ≥80.00%, particularly those with cPRA ≥99.90%, are considered highly sensitized and underserved by the Kidney Allocation System. Desensitization removes circulating reactive antibodies and/or suppresses antibody production to increase the chances of a negative crossmatch. CD38 is expressed highly on plasma cells, thus is a potential target for desensitization. Methods This was an open-label single-arm phase 1/2 study investigating the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of isatuximab in patients awaiting kidney transplantation. There were two cohorts, cohorts A and B, which enrolled cPRA ≥99.90% and 80.00% to <99.90%, respectively. Results Twenty-three patients (12 cohort A, 11 cohort B) received isatuximab 10 mg/kg weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. Isatuximab was well tolerated with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles that indicated similar exposure to multiple myeloma trials. It resulted in decreases in CD38 + plasmablasts, plasma cells, and NK cells and significant reductions in HLA-specific IgG-producing memory B cells. Overall response rate, on the basis of a predefined composite desensitization end point, was 83.3% and 81.8% in cohorts A and B. Most responders had decreases in anti-HLA antibodies that were maintained for 26 weeks after the last dose. Overall, cPRA values were minimally affected, however, with only 9/23 patients (39%) having cPRA decreases to target levels. By study cutoff (median follow-up of 68 weeks), six patients received transplant offers, of which four were accepted. Conclusions In this open-label trial, isatuximab was well tolerated and resulted in a durable decrease in anti-HLA antibodies with partial desensitization activity. Clinical Trial registration number NCT04294459.

AbstractKidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for individuals with end‐stage kidney disease. From a modeling perspective, our understanding of kidney function trajectories after transplantation remains limited. Current modeling of kidney function post‐transplantation is focused on linear slopes or percent decline and often excludes the highly variable early timepoints post‐transplantation, where kidney function recovers and then stabilizes. Using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a well‐known biomarker of kidney function, from an aggregated dataset of 4904 kidney transplant patients including both observational studies and clinical trials, we developed a longitudinal model of kidney function trajectories from time of transplant to 6 years post‐transplant. Our model is a nonlinear, mixed‐effects model built in NONMEM that captured both the recovery phase after kidney transplantation, where the graft recovers function, and the long‐term phase of stabilization and slow decline. Model fit was assessed using diagnostic plots and individual fits. Model performance, assessed via visual predictive checks, suggests accurate model predictions of eGFR at the median and lower 95% quantiles of eGFR, ranges which are of critical clinical importance for assessing loss of kidney function. Various clinically relevant covariates were also explored and found to improve the model. For example, transplant recipients of deceased donors recover function more slowly after transplantation and calcineurin inhibitor use promotes faster long‐term decay. Our work provides a generalizable, nonlinear model of kidney allograft function that will be useful for estimating eGFR up to 6 years post‐transplant in various clinically relevant populations.

Background. Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. Methods. We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. Results. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. Conclusions. Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

Background Donor safety and the impact on quality of life continue to concern transplant centers as living liver transplantation increases. Methods Living liver donors participated in a focus group to discuss their perceptions of the donation process. Results The decision to donate was a personal choice made before the request by the recipient or transplant service. Spouses verified their support, but indicated that they were not included in the process. No donors felt coerced. The explanation of the procedure was thorough but excessive. Hospital care was good; however, donors admitted being unprepared for the pain and side effects of pain medications. Ongoing incisional discomfort continued beyond 6 weeks and prevented donors from feeling normal. Donors felt conflicted about competing with the “true” patient for healthcare. Conclusions Donors were positive about the need and willingness to donate. Sensitivity to the order of the disclosure process is identified.

To achieve the fullest potential of transplantation, continuing concern for the recipients' quality of life must be a part of the process. Database records of patients who are currently alive and received transplants between 1982 and 1991 were retrospectively analyzed. Recipients were contacted and asked to answer a quality-of-life questionnaire. Of 105 liver transplant recipients, 51 died within 10 years after transplantation; 47 were contacted. Posttransplant complications included hypertension (64%), posttransplant diabetes mellitus (17%), osteopenia (40%), osteoporosis (26%), and heart disease (17%). Most recipients reported all aspects of their life to be average, if not better than their age-matched peers. Although most recipients complained about side effects of immunosuppressive agents, they were all happy to be alive and agreed that their quality of life showed an impressive favorable change to a level exceeding that of the general population. These results suggest that liver transplantation not only improved survival but also quality of life.