Application of the iBox prognostication system as a surrogate endpoint in the TRANSFORM randomised controlled trial: proof-of-concept study

Olivier Aubert, Gillian Divard, Julio Pascual, Federico Oppenheimer, Claudia Sommerer, Franco Citterio, Helio Tedesco, Steve Chadban, Mitchell Henry, Flavio Vincenti, Titte Srinivas, Yoshihiko Watarai, Christophe Legendre, Peter Bernhardt, Alexandre Loupy, Olivier Aubert, Gillian Divard, Julio Pascual, Federico Oppenheimer, Claudia Sommerer, Franco Citterio, Helio Tedesco, Steve Chadban, Mitchell Henry, Flavio Vincenti, Titte Srinivas, Yoshihiko Watarai, Christophe Legendre, Peter Bernhardt, Alexandre Loupy

Abstract

Objectives: Development of pharmaceutical agents in transplantation is currently limited by long waits for hard endpoints. We applied a validated integrative risk-prognostication system integrative Box (iBox) as a surrogate endpoint to the TRANSFORM Study, a large randomised controlled trial, to project individual patient long-term kidney allograft survival from 1 year to 11 years after randomisation.

Design: Post-hoc analysis of a randomised open-label controlled trial.

Setting: Multicentre study including 186 centres in 42 countries worldwide.

Participants: 2037 de novo kidney transplant recipients.

Intervention: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive everolimus with reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor (EVR+rCNI) or mycophenolic acid with standard-exposure CNI (MPA+sCNI).

Primary outcome measure: The iBox scores were computed for each participant at 1 year after randomisation using functional, immunological and histological parameters. Individual long-term death-censored allograft survival over 4, 6 and 11 years after randomisation was projected with the iBox risk-prognostication system.

Results: Overall, 940 patients receiving EVR+rCNI and 932 receiving MPA+sCNI completed the 1-year visit. iBox scores generated at 1 year yielded graft survival prediction rates of 90.9% vs 92.1%, 87.9% vs 89.5%, and 80.0% vs 82.4% in the EVR+rCNI versus MPA+sCNI arms at 4, 6, and 11 years post-randomisation, respectively (all differences below the 10% non-inferiority margin defined by study protocol). Inclusion of immunological and histological Banff diagnoses parameters in iBox scores resulted in comparable and non-inferior predicted graft survival for both treatments.

Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study provides the first application of a validated prognostication system as a surrogate endpoint in the field of transplantation. The iBox system, by projecting kidney allograft survival up to 11 years post-randomisation, confirms the non-inferiority of EVR+rCNI versus MPA+sCNI regimen. Given the current process engaged for surrogate endpoints qualification, this study illustrates the potential to fast track development of pharmaceutical agents.

Trial registration number: TRANSFORM trial: NCT01950819.iBox prognostication system: NCT03474003.

Keywords: clinical trials; renal transplantation; statistics & research methods; transplant medicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: JP, FO, CS, FC, HT, SC, MH, FV, TS, YW and CL comprised the scientific steering committee of TRANSFORM Study. FO has received speaker fees and travel support from Novartis. HT has received educational and travel grants from Novartis. PB is an employee of Novartis. AL holds shares in Cibiltech, a company that builds software.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient disposition. DSA, donor-specific antibodies; EVR, everolimus; iBox, integrative Box; MPA, mycophenolic acid; rCNI, reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor; sCNI, standard-exposure calcineurin inhibitor.
Figure 2
Figure 2
iBox#1 scores at 1 year after randomisation and projected allograft survival. (A) Mean iBox#1 scores in the EVR+rCNI and MPA+sCNI arms at 1 year. (B) Projected allograft survival in EVR+rCNI arm (blue line) and MPA+sCNI arm (red line). The black dotted line corresponds to the 10% inferiority margin. The duration of TRANSFORM is the time between randomisation and the endpoint of the TRANSFORM Study (1 year post-randomisation). The projected kidney allograft survival takes into account the event (death-censored graft loss) that occurred during the duration of TRANSFORM Study. EVR, everolimus, iBox, integrative Box; MPA, mycophenolic acid; rCNI, reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor; sCNI, standard-exposure calcineurin inhibitor.
Figure 3
Figure 3
iBox#2 scores at 1 year after randomisation and projected allograft survival. (A) Mean iBox#2 scores in the EVR+rCNI and MPA+sCNI arms at 1 year. (B) Projected allograft survival in EVR+rCNI arm (blue line) and MPA+sCNI arm (red line). The black dotted line corresponds to the 10% inferiority margin. The duration of TRANSFORM is the time between randomisation and the endpoint of the TRANSFORM Study (1 year post-randomisation). The projected kidney allograft survival takes into account the event (death-censored graft loss) that occurred during the duration of TRANSFORM Study. DSA, donor-specific antibodies; EVR, everolimus; iBox, integrative Box; MPA, mycophenolic acid; rCNI, reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor; sCNI, standard-exposure calcineurin inhibitor.
Figure 4
Figure 4
iBox#3 scores at 1 year after randomisation and projected allograft survival. (A) Mean iBox#3 scores in the EVR+rCNI and MPA+sCNI arms at 1 year. (B) Projected allograft survival in EVR+rCNI arm (blue line) and MPA+sCNI arm (red line). The black dotted line corresponds to the 10% inferiority margin. The duration of TRANSFORM is the time between randomisation and the endpoint of the TRANSFORM Study (1 year post-randomisation). The projected kidney allograft survival takes into account the event (death-censored graft loss) that occurred during the duration of TRANSFORM Study. DSA, donor-specific antibodies; EVR, everolimus, iBox, integrative Box; MPA, mycophenolic acid; rCNI, reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor; sCNI, standard-exposure calcineurin inhibitor.

References

    1. Coemans M, Süsal C, Döhler B, et al. . Analyses of the short- and long-term graft survival after kidney transplantation in Europe between 1986 and 2015. Kidney Int 2018;94:964–73. 10.1016/j.kint.2018.05.018
    1. Hart A, Smith JM, Skeans MA, et al. . OPTN/SRTR 2017 annual data report: kidney. Am J Transplant 2019;19 Suppl 2:19–123. 10.1111/ajt.15274
    1. Fergusson NA, Ramsay T, Chassé M, et al. . Impact of using alternative graft function endpoints: a secondary analysis of a kidney transplant trial. Transplant Direct 2019;5:e439. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000880
    1. Maggiore U, Leventhal J, Cravedi P. Rethinking clinical endpoints in kidney transplant trials. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2020;25:1–7. 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000719
    1. Shabir S, Halimi J-M, Cherukuri A, et al. . Predicting 5-year risk of kidney transplant failure: a prediction instrument using data available at 1 year posttransplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 2014;63:643–51. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.10.059
    1. Stamenic D, Rousseau A, Essig M, et al. . A prognostic tool for individualized prediction of graft failure risk within ten years after kidney transplantation. J Transplant 2019;2019:1–10. 10.1155/2019/7245142
    1. Galichon P, Xu-Dubois Y-C, Finianos S, et al. . Clinical and histological predictors of long-term kidney graft survival. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013;28:1362–70. 10.1093/ndt/gfs606
    1. Sautenet B, Tong A, Chapman JR, et al. . Range and consistency of outcomes reported in randomized trials conducted in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review. Transplantation 2018;102:2065–71. 10.1097/TP.0000000000002278
    1. Hariharan S, Kasiske B, Matas A, et al. . Surrogate markers for long-term renal allograft survival. Am J Transplant 2004;4:1179–83. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00484.x
    1. Kasiske BL, Israni AK, Snyder JJ, et al. . The relationship between kidney function and long-term graft survival after kidney transplant. Am J Kidney Dis 2011;57:466–75. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.10.054
    1. Stegall MD, Troy Somerville K, Everly MJ, et al. . The importance of drug safety and tolerability in the development of new immunosuppressive therapy for transplant recipients: the transplant therapeutics Consortium's position statement. Am J Transplant 2019;19:625–32. 10.1111/ajt.15214
    1. US Food & Drug Administration . Surrogate endpoint resources for drug and biologic development. Available: [Accessed 25 Sep 2020].
    1. Kaplan B, Schold J, Meier-Kriesche H-U. Poor predictive value of serum creatinine for renal allograft loss. Am J Transplant 2003;3:1560–5. 10.1046/j.1600-6135.2003.00275.x
    1. He X, Moore J, Shabir S, et al. . Comparison of the predictive performance of eGFR formulae for mortality and graft failure in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2009;87:384–92. 10.1097/TP.0b013e31819004a1
    1. Naesens M, Lerut E, Emonds M-P, et al. . Proteinuria as a noninvasive marker for renal allograft histology and failure: an observational cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;27:281–92. 10.1681/ASN.2015010062
    1. Yilmaz S, Tomlanovich S, Mathew T, et al. . Protocol core needle biopsy and histologic chronic allograft damage index (CADI) as surrogate end point for long-term graft survival in multicenter studies. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14:773–9. 10.1097/01.ASN.0000054496.68498.13
    1. Gonzales MM, Bentall A, Kremers WK, et al. . Predicting individual renal allograft outcomes using risk models with 1-year surveillance biopsy and alloantibody data. J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;27:3165–74. 10.1681/ASN.2015070811
    1. Lefaucheur C, Loupy A, Hill GS, et al. . Preexisting donor-specific HLA antibodies predict outcome in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;21:1398–406. 10.1681/ASN.2009101065
    1. Prémaud A, Filloux M, Gatault P, et al. . An adjustable predictive score of graft survival in kidney transplant patients and the levels of risk linked to de novo donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. PLoS One 2017;12:e0180236. 10.1371/journal.pone.0180236
    1. Loupy A, Aubert O, Orandi BJ, et al. . Prediction system for risk of allograft loss in patients receiving kidney transplants: international derivation and validation study. BMJ 2019;366:l4923. 10.1136/bmj.l4923
    1. US Food and Drug Administration . Center for drug evaluation and research (CDER) biomarker qualification program (BQP). letter of intention. Available: [Accessed 25 Sep 2020].
    1. Pascual J, Srinivas TR, Chadban S, et al. . Balancing efficacy and renal function preservation after kidney transplantation with everolimus and reduced calcineurin inhibitors for better graft outcomes: design of the transform study. Nephrol Dial Transpl 2014;29:iii535.
    1. Pascual J, Berger SP, Witzke O, et al. . Everolimus with reduced calcineurin inhibitor exposure in renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2018;29:1979–91. 10.1681/ASN.2018010009
    1. Berger SP, Sommerer C, Witzke O, et al. . Two-Year outcomes in de novo renal transplant recipients receiving everolimus-facilitated calcineurin inhibitor reduction regimen from the transform study. Am J Transplant 2019;19:3018–34. 10.1111/ajt.15480
    1. Rostaing L, Hertig A, Albano L, et al. . Fibrosis progression according to epithelial-mesenchymal transition profile: a randomized trial of everolimus versus CSA. Am J Transplant 2015;15:1303–12. 10.1111/ajt.13132

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe