Abstract
BackgroundA single non-invasive gene expression profiling (GEP) test (AlloMap®) is often used to discriminate if a heart transplant recipient is at a low risk of acute cellular rejection at time of testing. In a randomized trial, use of the test (a GEP score from 0–40) has been shown to be non-inferior to a routine endomyocardial biopsy for surveillance after heart transplantation in selected low-risk patients with respect to clinical outcomes. Recently, it was suggested that the within-patient variability of consecutive GEP scores may be used to independently predict future clinical events; however, future studies were recommended. Here we performed an analysis of an independent patient population to determine the prognostic utility of within-patient variability of GEP scores in predicting future clinical events.MethodsWe defined the GEP score variability as the standard deviation of four GEP scores collected ≥315 days post-transplantation. Of the 737 patients from the Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational (CARGO) II trial, 36 were assigned to the composite event group (death, re-transplantation or graft failure ≥315 days post-transplantation and within 3 years of the final GEP test) and 55 were assigned to the control group (non-event patients). In this case-controlled study, the performance of GEP score variability to predict future events was evaluated by the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC ROC). The negative predictive values (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) including 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of GEP score variability were calculated.ResultsThe estimated prevalence of events was 17 %. Events occurred at a median of 391 (inter-quartile range 376) days after the final GEP test. The GEP variability AUC ROC for the prediction of a composite event was 0.72 (95 % CI 0.6-0.8). The NPV for GEP score variability of 0.6 was 97 % (95 % CI 91.4-100.0); the PPV for GEP score variability of 1.5 was 35.4 % (95 % CI 13.5-75.8).ConclusionIn heart transplant recipients, a GEP score variability may be used to predict the probability that a composite event will occur within 3 years after the last GEP score.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00761787Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-015-0106-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
A single non-invasive gene expression profiling (GEP) test (AlloMap®) is often used to discriminate if a heart transplant recipient is at a low risk of acute cellular rejection at time of testing
In a landmark article published more than 40 years ago, Dr Philip Caves and colleagues described the percutaneous transvenous endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and reported their experience with the 67 cardiac biopsies performed in 17 cardiac transplant recipients [1]
In the Invasive Monitoring Attenuation by Gene Expression Profiling (IMAGE) study, the use of a single gene expression profiling score to assess a risk of acute cellular rejection in clinically stable patients six months post cardiac transplant resulted in a significant decrease in the number of EMB performed
Summary
A single non-invasive gene expression profiling (GEP) test (AlloMap®) is often used to discriminate if a heart transplant recipient is at a low risk of acute cellular rejection at time of testing. Use of the test (a GEP score from 0–40) has been shown to be non-inferior to a routine endomyocardial biopsy for surveillance after heart transplantation in selected low-risk patients with respect to clinical outcomes. It was suggested that the within-patient variability of consecutive GEP scores may be used to independently predict future clinical events; future studies were recommended. We performed an analysis of an independent patient population to determine the prognostic utility of within-patient variability of GEP scores in predicting future clinical events. Serial EMB has become the standard of care for monitoring transplant rejection status in adult patients [2]. A significant interest in developing novel surveillance strategies has fueled many attempts at finding alternative non-invasive tests to monitor allograft status [6]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.