Clinical usefulness of gene-expression profile to rule out acute rejection after heart transplantation: CARGO II.

AIMS: A non-invasive gene-expression profiling (GEP) test for rejection surveillance of heart transplant recipients originated in the USA. A European-based study, Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational II Study (CARGO II), was conducted to further clinically validate the GEP test performance. METHODS AND RESULTS: Blood samples for GEP testing (AlloMap(®), CareDx, Brisbane, CA, USA) were collected during post-transplant surveillance. The reference standard for rejection status was based on histopathology grading of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), negative (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for the GEP scores (range 0-39) were computed. Considering the GEP score of 34 as a cut-off (>6 months post-transplantation), 95.5% (381/399) of GEP tests were true negatives, 4.5% (18/399) were false negatives, 10.2% (6/59) were true positives, and 89.8% (53/59) were false positives. Based on 938 paired biopsies, the GEP test score AUC-ROC for distinguishing ≥3A rejection was 0.70 and 0.69 for ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, respectively. Depending on the chosen threshold score, the NPV and PPV range from 98.1 to 100% and 2.0 to 4.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: For ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, CARGO II GEP score performance (AUC-ROC = 0.70 and 0.69) is similar to the CARGO study results (AUC-ROC = 0.71 and 0.67). The low prevalence of ACR contributes to the high NPV and limited PPV of GEP testing. The choice of threshold score for practical use of GEP testing should consider overall clinical assessment of the patient's baseline risk for rejection.

Gene-expression profiling for rejection surveillance after cardiac transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Endomyocardial biopsy is the standard method of monitoring for rejection in recipients of a cardiac transplant. However, this procedure is uncomfortable, and there are risks associated with it. Gene-expression profiling of peripheral-blood specimens has been shown to correlate with the results of an endomyocardial biopsy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 602 patients who had undergone cardiac transplantation 6 months to 5 years previously to be monitored for rejection with the use of gene-expression profiling or with the use of routine endomyocardial biopsies, in addition to clinical and echocardiographic assessment of graft function. We performed a noninferiority comparison of the two approaches with respect to the composite primary outcome of rejection with hemodynamic compromise, graft dysfunction due to other causes, death, or retransplantation. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 19 months, patients who were monitored with gene-expression profiling and those who underwent routine biopsies had similar 2-year cumulative rates of the composite primary outcome (14.5% and 15.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with gene-expression profiling, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.68). The 2-year rates of death from any cause were also similar in the two groups (6.3% and 5.5%, respectively; P=0.82). Patients who were monitored with the use of gene-expression profiling underwent fewer biopsies per person-year of follow-up than did patients who were monitored with the use of endomyocardial biopsies (0.5 vs. 3.0, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among selected patients who had received a cardiac transplant more than 6 months previously and who were at a low risk for rejection, a strategy of monitoring for rejection that involved gene-expression profiling, as compared with routine biopsies, was not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse outcomes and resulted in the performance of significantly fewer biopsies. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00351559.)

Patient reported outcomes do not correlate to functional knee recovery and range of motion in total knee arthroplasty.

Background: Many total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients exhibit continued pain and limited function following surgery. Determining TKA outcomes is typically reliant on post-operative evaluations and completing patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). Due to low compliance rates, it is essential to identify new strategies for monitoring patients. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the correlations between gait kinematics, PROMs, and knee range of motion (ROM). Methods: 130 patients (75 female) received Persona IQ TKA (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) which includes a stem extension with embedded accelerometer and gyroscope. PROM scores were compared at baseline and 6 weeks post-TKA using a paired t-test. Gait kinematics were recorded daily via the Persona IQ stem extension. Pearson's correlation coefficients were derived between PROMs and average gait kinematics. Results: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS Jr.) and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical scores improved following surgery (p ≤ 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). Weak statistically significant correlations were found between PROMS and gait kinematics. Conclusion: Weak correlations between PROMs and gait kinematics indicate patient perception of improvement and objectively measured functional status may not be interchangeable. Further, compliance with Persona IQ data reached 95.4-97.7% (depending on the parameter) at 6 weeks following surgery, a 20% higher compliance rate over PROMs. Daily functional measurements provide insight into the patient's progression and may be useful in detecting poor outcomes.

Utility of gene expression profiling score variability to predict clinical events in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Gene expression profiling test scores have primarily been used to identify heart transplant recipients who have a low probability of rejection at the time of surveillance testing. We hypothesized that the variability of gene expression profiling test scores within a patient may predict risk of future events of allograft dysfunction or death. METHOD: Patients from the IMAGE study with rejection surveillance gene expression profiling tests performed at 1- to 6-month intervals were selected for this cohort study. Gene expression profiling score variability was defined as the standard deviation of an individual's cumulative test scores. Gene expression profiling ordinal score (range, 0-39), threshold score (binary value=1 if ordinal score ≥ 34), and score variability were studied in multivariate Cox regression models to predict future clinical events. RESULTS: Race, age at time of transplantation, and time posttransplantation were significantly associated with future events in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analyses, gene expression profiling score variability, but not ordinal scores or scores over threshold, was independently associated with future clinical events. The regression coefficient P values were <0.001, 0.46, and 0.773, for gene expression profiling variability, ordinal, and threshold scores, respectively. The hazard ratio for a 1 unit increase in variability was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.4-2.3). DISCUSSION: The variability of a heart recipient's gene expression profiling test scores over time may provide prognostic utility. This information is independent of the probability of acute cellular rejection at the time of testing that is rendered from a single ordinal gene-expression profiling test score.

Clinical investigational studies for validation of a next-generation sequencing in vitro diagnostic device for cystic fibrosis testing.

PURPOSE: Clinical investigational studies were conducted to demonstrate the accuracy and reproducibility of the Illumina MiSeqDx CF System, a next-generation sequencing (NGS) in vitro diagnostic device for cystic fibrosis testing. METHODS: Two NGS assays - a Clinical Sequencing Assay (Sequencing Assay) and a 139-Variant Assay (Variant Assay) - were evaluated in both an Accuracy Study and a Reproducibility Study, with comparison to bi-directional Sanger sequencing and PCR as reference methods. For each study, positive agreement (PA), negative agreement (NA), and overall agreement (OA) were evaluated. RESULTS: In the Accuracy Study, the Sequencing Assay achieved PA of 99.7% including the polyTG/polyT region and PA of 100% excluding the region. The Variant Assay achieved PA of 100%. NA and OA were >99.99% for both Assays. In the Reproducibility Study, the Sequencing Assay achieved PA of 99.2%; NA and OA were both 99.7%. The Variant Assay achieved PA of 99.8%; NA and OA were both 99.9%. Sample pass rates were 99.7% in both studies for both assays. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic evaluation of a NGS platform for broad clinical use as an in vitro diagnostic, including accuracy validation with multiple reference methods and reproducibility validation at multiple clinical sites. These NGS-based Assays had accurate and reproducible results which were comparable to or better than other methods currently in clinical use for clinical genetic testing of cystic fibrosis.