Cargando…
Comparison of donor‐derived cell‐free DNA between single versus double lung transplant recipients
Plasma donor‐derived cell‐free DNA (dd‐cfDNA) is a sensitive biomarker for the diagnosis of acute rejection in lung transplant recipients; however, differences in dd‐cfDNA levels between single and double lung transplant remains unknown. We performed an observational analysis that included 221 patie...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9508279/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35322546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.17039 |
Sumario: | Plasma donor‐derived cell‐free DNA (dd‐cfDNA) is a sensitive biomarker for the diagnosis of acute rejection in lung transplant recipients; however, differences in dd‐cfDNA levels between single and double lung transplant remains unknown. We performed an observational analysis that included 221 patients from two prospective cohort studies who had serial measurements of plasma dd‐cfDNA at the time of bronchoscopy and pulmonary function testing, and compared dd‐cfDNA between single and double lung transplant recipients across a range of disease states. Levels of dd‐cfDNA were lower for single vs. double lung transplant in stable controls (median [IQR]: 0.15% [0.07, 0.44] vs. 0.46% [0.23, 0.74], p < .01) and acute rejection (1.06% [0.75, 2.32] vs. 1.78% [1.18, 5.73], p = .05). Doubling dd‐cfDNA for single lung transplant to account for differences in lung mass eliminated this difference. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the detection of acute rejection was 0.89 and 0.86 for single and double lung transplant, respectively. The optimal dd‐cfDNA threshold for the detection of acute rejection was 0.54% in single lung and 1.1% in double lung transplant. In conclusion, accounting for differences in dd‐cfDNA in single versus double lung transplant is key for the interpretation of dd‐cfDNA testing in research and clinical settings. |
---|