Key result
MMDx correlates more strongly with dd-cfDNA and DSA than standard histology for heart transplant rejection.
Why the study?
Four tests assess antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplants and are critical for developing novel therapies, but the relationships among them needed definition.
How do molecular analysis (MMDx), dd-cfDNA, and DSA compare to standard histology for assessing antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplants?
Observational (n=214)
How do molecular analysis (MMDx), dd-cfDNA, and DSA compare to standard histology for assessing antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplants?
Molecular analysis (MMDx) correlates more strongly with dd-cfDNA and DSA than standard histology for diagnosing antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplants, suggesting it may provide a more accurate assessment of rejection.
MMDx ABMR correlates more strongly with dd-cfDNA and DSA than histology; supports test integration for management but leaves practice change open.
BACKGROUND: Four tests assess antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) in heart transplants: standard of care local endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) histology, EMB molecular analysis (Molecular Microscope® Diagnostic System - MMDx), donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA), and donor-specific antibody (DSA). These tests have become critical for the development and use of novel therapies for ABMR. The Trifecta-Heart study (NCT04707872) aimed to define the relationships among these tests. METHODS: The study compared standard of care local histology diagnosis to the results of three central tests assessing ABMR: central DSA (One Lambda Inc.), dd-cfDNA (Natera, Inc.), and MMDx rejection assessments in 214 EMBs. Results were primarily expressed as positive-negative to facilitate analysis and to simulate the way all tests are used for clinical decision-making. RESULTS: MMDx diagnosed more ABMR, TCMR, and No rejection (NR) than histology, a pattern confirmed in a validation set from the larger INTERHEART study (NCT02670408). When correlations and partial correlation modeling were used to defined the hierarchy of relationships among all tests, MMDx ABMR correlated more strongly with dd-cfDNA and DSA than did histologic ABMR. In MMDx-histology discrepancies, biopsies with no histologic rejection but with MMDx ABMR had elevated DSA and dd-cfDNA, and biopsies with MMDx NR but histology ABMR had low DSA and dd-cfDNA. DSA-negative ABMR by MMDx or histology had elevated dd-cfDNA, similar to DSA-positive ABMR. Most cases with molecular injury and high dd-cfDNA also had concurrent molecular rejection. CONCLUSIONS: These inter-test relationships will be useful in guiding ABMR management, including monitoring of treatment responses and relapses, especially when discrepancies occur.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Madill-Thomsen et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplants (n=214). Central diagnostic tests (MMDx, dd-cfDNA, DSA) vs. Standard of care local endomyocardial biopsy histology was evaluated on Hierarchy of relationships among tests assessing ABMR. Molecular analysis (MMDx) for antibody-mediated rejection correlated more strongly with dd-cfDNA and DSA than did standard histologic assessment in 214 heart transplant biopsies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: