Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Transplant. Sep 18, 2020; 10(9): 230-255
Published online Sep 18, 2020. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v10.i9.230
Published online Sep 18, 2020. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v10.i9.230
Ref. | n | Sample | Biomarkers | Outcome | Study conclusion |
Friedewald et al[10], 2019 | 308 | Plasma | Blood based biomarker/gene expression profile | Subclinical acute rejection | GEP AR biomarker predicted sc-AR (sensitivity 64%, specificity 87%, PPV = 61%, NPV = 88%) |
Zhang et al[29], 2019 | 113 | Plasma | TREx | Rejection at 3 mo, Graft failure | TREx predicts sc-AR at 3 mo in 113 KTRs (AUC = 0.830; NPV = 0.98, PPV = 0.79) |
Crespo et al[30], 2017 | 75 | Plasma | kSORT™ + ELISpot | Subclinical rejection | kSORT™ + ELISpot predict sc-ARa, sc-TCMRa and sc-ABMRa (AUC > 0.85) |
First et al[32], 2019 | 192; 45 | Plasma | TruGraf® GEP | Surveillance of patients with stable allograft function | In 87.5% of the cases, investigators’ clinical decisions were influenced by TruGraf® results. In 45 patients TruGraf® supported 87% of clinical decisions with 93% of investigators stating they would use TruGraf® in subsequent patient care |
Sigdel et al[33], 2019 | 150 KTRs (43 stable, 45 AR, 19 borderline AR, 43 BKVN) | Urine | Common rejection module (11 genes) | Rejection | 10/11 genes were elevated in AR when compared to stable graft function. Psmb9 and CXCL10 could classify AR versus stable graft function as accurately as the 11-gene model (sensitivity = 93.6%, specificity = 97.6%); uCRM score differentiate AR from stable graft function (AUC = 0.9886) |
- Citation: Swanson KJ, Aziz F, Garg N, Mohamed M, Mandelbrot D, Djamali A, Parajuli S. Role of novel biomarkers in kidney transplantation. World J Transplant 2020; 10(9): 230-255
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3230/full/v10/i9/230.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v10.i9.230