Prognostic Biomarkers in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

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.

Excess mortality after kidney transplantation: does sex matter?

Understanding sex differences in graft outcomes within the course of kidney transplantation is needed to unravel factors leading to the observed disparities and further improve patient management. In this issue, Vinson et al. presented a relative survival analysis comparing the excess risk of mortality in female and male recipients after kidney transplantation. This commentary discusses the major findings but also the challenges of the use of registry data to conduct large-scale analyses.

Machine learning does not outperform traditional statistical modelling for kidney allograft failure prediction.

Machine learning (ML) models have recently shown potential for predicting kidney allograft outcomes. However, their ability to outperform traditional approaches remains poorly investigated. Therefore, using large cohorts of kidney transplant recipients from 14 centers worldwide, we developed ML-based prediction models for kidney allograft survival and compared their prediction performances to those achieved by a validated Cox-Based Prognostication System (CBPS). In a French derivation cohort of 4000 patients, candidate determinants of allograft failure including donor, recipient and transplant-related parameters were used as predictors to develop tree-based models (RSF, RSF-ERT, CIF), Support Vector Machine models (LK-SVM, AK-SVM) and a gradient boosting model (XGBoost). Models were externally validated with cohorts of 2214 patients from Europe, 1537 from North America, and 671 from South America. Among these 8422 kidney transplant recipients, 1081 (12.84%) lost their grafts after a median post-transplant follow-up time of 6.25 years (Inter Quartile Range 4.33-8.73). At seven years post-risk evaluation, the ML models achieved a C-index of 0.788 (95% bootstrap percentile confidence interval 0.736-0.833), 0.779 (0.724-0.825), 0.786 (0.735-0.832), 0.527 (0.456-0.602), 0.704 (0.648-0.759) and 0.767 (0.711-0.815) for RSF, RSF-ERT, CIF, LK-SVM, AK-SVM and XGBoost respectively, compared with 0.808 (0.792-0.829) for the CBPS. In validation cohorts, ML models' discrimination performances were in a similar range of those of the CBPS. Calibrations of the ML models were similar or less accurate than those of the CBPS. Thus, when using a transparent methodological pipeline in validated international cohorts, ML models, despite overall good performances, do not outperform a traditional CBPS in predicting kidney allograft failure. Hence, our current study supports the continued use of traditional statistical approaches for kidney graft prognostication.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected health systems and medical research worldwide but its impact on the global publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research has not been measured. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the scientific production of non-COVID-19 research. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive meta-research on studies (original articles, research letters and case reports) published between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2021 in 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature Medicine, British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, Lancet Infectious Disease and Clinical Infectious Disease). For each publication, we recorded publication date, publication type, number of authors, whether the publication was related to COVID-19, whether the publication was based on a case series, and the number of patients included in the study if the publication was based on a case report or a case series. We estimated the publication dynamics with a locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method. A Natural Language Processing algorithm was designed to calculate the number of authors for each publication. We simulated the number of non-COVID-19 studies that could have been published during the pandemic by extrapolating the publication dynamics of 2019 to 2020, and comparing the expected number to the observed number of studies. RESULTS: Among the 22,525 studies assessed, 6319 met the inclusion criteria, of which 1022 (16.2%) were related to COVID-19 research. A dramatic increase in the number of publications in general journals was observed from February to April 2020 from a weekly median number of publications of 4.0 (IQR: 2.8-5.5) to 19.5 (IQR: 15.8-24.8) (p < 0.001), followed afterwards by a pattern of stability with a weekly median number of publications of 10.0 (IQR: 6.0-14.0) until December 2020 (p = 0.045 in comparison with April). Two prototypical editorial strategies were found: 1) journals that maintained the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 research and thus increased their overall scientific production, and 2) journals that decreased the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications. We estimated using simulation models that the COVID pandemic was associated with a 18% decrease in the production of non-COVID-19 research. We also found a significant change of the publication type in COVID-19 research as compared with non-COVID-19 research illustrated by a decrease in the number of original articles, (47.9% in COVID-19 publications vs 71.3% in non-COVID-19 publications, p < 0.001). Last, COVID-19 publications showed a higher number of authors, especially for case reports with a median of 9.0 authors (IQR: 6.0-13.0) in COVID-19 publications, compared to a median of 4.0 authors (IQR: 3.0-6.0) in non-COVID-19 publications (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this meta-research gathering publications from high-impact medical journals, we have shown that the dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications was accompanied by a substantial decrease of non-COVID-19 research. META-RESEARCH REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/9vtzp/ .

3D Coculture Models Underline Metastatic Melanoma Cell Sensitivity to Vemurafenib.

IMPACT STATEMENT: Three dimensional in vitro cell culture systems better reflect the native structural architecture of tissues and are attractive to investigate cancer cell sensitivity to drugs. We have developed and compared several metastatic melanoma (MM) models cultured as a monolayer (2D) and cocultured on three dimensional (3D) dermal equivalents with fibroblasts to better unravel factors modulating cell sensitivity to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor. The heterotypic 3D melanoma model we have established summarizes paracrine signalization by stromal cells and type I collagen matrix, mimicking the natural microenvironment of cutaneous MM, and allows for the identification of potent sensitive melanoma cells to the drug. This model could be a powerful tool for predicting drug efficiency.