Citations

Significance Statement Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. Background Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. Methods We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. Results A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8–35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3–59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96–629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0–6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. Conclusions Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Background. Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are common in liver transplant recipients. The optimal SSI antimicrobial prophylaxis agent and duration are not established. We aimed to explore risk factors for SSIs after transplant, with a particular interest in the impact of perioperative antibiotic regimen on the development of SSIs. Methods. Retrospective study of adults undergoing liver transplant across 3 transplant programs between January 1, 2020, and June 01, 2021. Results. Of 557 patients included in the study, 32 (5.7%) were infected or colonized with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) within 1 y before liver transplant. Narrow-spectrum SSI prophylaxis with ceftriaxone or cefazolin alone was administered in 488 of 577 patients (87.6%); the remaining 69 patients (12.4%) received broad-spectrum prophylaxis with vancomycin and aztreonam (n = 40), piperacillin–tazobactam (n = 11), carbapenems (n = 8), ceftriaxone and another antibiotic (n = 7), and others. Patients with pretransplant MDRO were more likely to receive broad-spectrum coverage than those without pretransplant MDROs (28.1% versus 11.4%, P = 0.005). SSIs were identified in 40 patients (7.2%); 25 (62.5%) were organ–space infections, 3 (7.5%) were deep incisional infections, and 12 (30.0%) were superficial incisional infections. The median time from liver transplant to SSIs was 14 d (interquartile range, 10–20.2). MDROs were identified in 12 SSIs (30%). Multivariable analysis revealed no significant association between antimicrobial spectrum and risk of SSIs (P = 0.5), whereas surgical leak (P<0.001) and reoperation (P = 0.017) were independently associated with increased risk of SSIs. SSIs were not significantly associated with composite risk of death or liver allograft failure. Conclusions. The spectrum of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not impact the development of SSIs in liver transplant recipients.

Background: The use of CAR-T cell therapy has transformed treatment paradigms in B-cell malignancies. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved for use in RRMM after four or more prior lines of therapy in 2022. While the pivotal studies exclusively treated patients in an inpatient setting, robust infrastructure planning at some centers across US has fostered outpatient administration of the commercially available product. Outpatient administration of CAR-T is more desirable due to superior financial sustainability, lower healthcare resource utilization, and greater patient autonomy during the treatment. Hence, we conducted a qualitative study to evaluate clinical and administrative perspectives and trends in outpatient administration of commercialized cilta-cel with an aim to understand best practices from certified CAR-T centers in the USA. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to better understand current practices around outpatient administration of CAR-T, and inform the development of primary research materials for designing subsequent interviews. Next, two 60-minute exploratory interviews were conducted with multi-stakeholder participants (n=5) from two certified cilta-cel centers, each with significant volume of outpatient administration of cilta-cel. Following the qualitative analysis of interviews, two 90-minute panels were conducted with multi-stakeholder participants (n=14) from six certified cilta-cel centers, including centers from exploratory interviews, focusing on clinical and administrative topics across the patient journey. Results: Each center in the study treated approximately 15-30 patients with cilta-cel in the outpatient setting. Using Likert scales, participants from all centers ranked space/capacity as the most important factor in decision-making process for outpatient cilta-cel administration, and ranked reimbursement incentives as a highly (67% of participants) or a moderately (33%) important factor. All participants agreed that having a dedicated outpatient infrastructure (dedicated space such as bed availability and internal processes including standard operating procedures (SOPs)), 24/7 support, outpatient bone marrow transplant (BMT) or cell therapy experience, and robust multidisciplinary teams were key to setting-up successful outpatient centers for cilta-cel therapy. The participants agreed that cilta-cel can be administered safely in an outpatient setting due to generally predictable, delayed onset of potential AEs, except in patients with significant comorbidities or organ dysfunction. Participants also considered caregiver support and lodging availability as factors of importance for outpatient administration. Institutionally established AE monitoring protocols are critical for safe use of cilta-cel in an outpatient setting. Over 50% of the centers interviewed have recently started to administer tocilizumab to treat mild grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in an outpatient setting. Based on the findings across the phases of research, the patient journey for outpatient administration of cilta-cel was updated (Figure 1). While patients may be admitted for toxicity events, 100% of centers interviewed had 24-hour coverage and bed availability for these patients if needed. Conclusions: Overall, this study further supports the notion that centers can safely administer cilta-cel in an outpatient setting, if appropriate infrastructure is in place. Additional best practices for new outpatient sites include adequate infrastructure, SOPs, a well-trained and multidisciplinary team, and education of patients and caregivers (Table 1). Outpatient management and earlier intervention for low-grade AEs is currently evolving, with more real-world research required. Continued expert sharing of best practices can aid centers in implementing outpatient administration of CAR-T therapies. Funding: This analysis was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC and Legend Biotech USA, Inc