Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical trial analysis reveals assuming DSA positivity increases histologic rejection diagnosis in kidney recipients, indicating improved risk detection.
Emerging treatments for antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR, NEJM391 (2):122-132) have increased the importance of ABMR detection when donor-specific antibody (DSA) is negative. We addressed this issue in the Trifecta-Kidney study (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04239703) using 3 centralized tests in 690 kidney transplant biopsies: DSA (One Lambda Inc), blood donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA, Prospera™ test, Natera, Inc), and molecular biopsy assessment (MMDx). We used an "AutoBanff 2022" algorithm to model the impact of alternative DSA interpretations on the histologic diagnosis of DSA-negative ABMR following Banff guidelines, including agreement with dd-cfDNA and molecular ABMR. Lowering MFI cutoffs for DSA positivity did not improve the detection of DSA-negative ABMR. However, simply calling all DSA as positive allowed the Banff 2022 guidelines to identify 46% more ABMR cases with no measurable conventional DSA, and per net reclassification improvement increased agreement between histologic diagnoses and both dd-cfDNA (P = 7.72E-7) and molecular ABMR (P = 7.69E-7). New ABMR cases were as strongly positive for dd-cfDNA and molecular ABMR as those found using the conventional DSA interpretation. A validation set analysis using INTERCOMEX study data (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#01299168) confirmed these findings and found that the new DSA-negative ABMR cases identified by calling all DSA-positive had the same risk for graft loss as those found with conventional DSA interpretation. Trifecta-Kidney Study ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04239703.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hidalgo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: