Randomized Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of Renal Allograft Monitoring by Urine CXCL10 Chemokine.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate the clinical utility of a noninvasive monitoring biomarker in renal transplantation. Although urine CXCL10 monitoring could not demonstrate a beneficial effect on 1-year outcomes, the study is a rich source for future design of trials aiming to explore the clinical utility of noninvasive biomarkers. In addition, the study supports the use of urine CXCL10 to assess the inflammatory status of the renal allograft. BACKGROUND: Urine CXCL10 is a promising noninvasive biomarker for detection of renal allograft rejection. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical utility of renal allograft monitoring by urine CXCL10 in a randomized trial. METHODS: We stratified 241 patients, 120 into an intervention and 121 into a control arm. In both arms, urine CXCL10 levels were monitored at three specific time points (1, 3, and 6 months post-transplant). In the intervention arm, elevated values triggered performance of an allograft biopsy with therapeutic adaptations according to the result. In the control arm, urine CXCL10 was measured, but the results concealed. The primary outcome was a combined end point at 1-year post-transplant (death-censored graft loss, clinical rejection between month 1 and 1-year, acute rejection in 1-year surveillance biopsy, chronic active T-cell-mediated rejection in 1-year surveillance biopsy, development of de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies, or eGFR <25 ml/min). RESULTS: The incidence of the primary outcome was not different between the intervention and the control arm (51% versus 49%; relative risk (RR), 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.34]; P = 0.80). When including 175 of 241 (73%) patients in a per-protocol analysis, the incidence of the primary outcome was also not different (55% versus 49%; RR, 1.11 [95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.47]; P = 0.54). The incidence of the individual end points was not different as well. CONCLUSIONS: This study could not demonstrate a beneficial effect of urine CXCL10 monitoring on 1-year outcomes (ClinicalTrials.gov_ NCT03140514 ).

Outcome of Husband-to-Wife Kidney Transplantation With Mutual Children: Single Center Experience Using T Cell-Depleting Induction and Review of the Literature.

Few data on husband-to-wife transplantations with mutual children (H2W) exist in the current era. We investigated the outcome of H2W transplantations (n = 25) treated with T cell-depleting induction compared to women with prior pregnancies also receiving their first HLA-mismatched kidney transplant, but from a different donor source: (i) other living donor (n = 52) and (ii) deceased donor (n = 120). Seventy-four percent of the women had ≥2 pregnancies; median follow-up time was 5 years. Death-censored allograft survival was significantly lower in the H2W group compared to the other two groups (p = 0.03). Three of four graft losses in the H2W group were due to rejection. 5-year patient survival in the H2W group was high and similar compared to the other living donor group (100 vs. 98%; p = 0.28). The incidence of (sub)clinical antibody-mediated rejection was higher in the H2W group (36 vs. 20 vs. 18%) (p = 0.10). The frequency of infections was similar among the three groups. No immunological parameter was predictive for rejection or graft loss in H2W transplantations. In conclusion, H2W transplantation is a valuable option, but associated with a higher risk for allograft loss due to rejection despite T cell-depleting induction. Further research is required for better risk prediction on an individual patient level.