Cargando…

Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation

There is a need to improve personalized immunosuppression in organ transplantation to reduce premature graft loss. Biomarkers are needed to better detect rejection, asymptomatic graft injury, and under-immunosuppression. Assessment of minimal necessary exposure to guide tapering and prevent immune a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oellerich, Michael, Budde, Klemens, Osmanodja, Bilgin, Bornemann-Kolatzki, Kirsten, Beck, Julia, Schütz, Ekkehard, Walson, Philip D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36339004
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1031894
_version_ 1784824397540884480
author Oellerich, Michael
Budde, Klemens
Osmanodja, Bilgin
Bornemann-Kolatzki, Kirsten
Beck, Julia
Schütz, Ekkehard
Walson, Philip D.
author_facet Oellerich, Michael
Budde, Klemens
Osmanodja, Bilgin
Bornemann-Kolatzki, Kirsten
Beck, Julia
Schütz, Ekkehard
Walson, Philip D.
author_sort Oellerich, Michael
collection PubMed
description There is a need to improve personalized immunosuppression in organ transplantation to reduce premature graft loss. Biomarkers are needed to better detect rejection, asymptomatic graft injury, and under-immunosuppression. Assessment of minimal necessary exposure to guide tapering and prevent immune activation is also important. There is robust clinical evidence from a large number of published studies supporting the role of dd-cfDNA for monitoring graft integrity and detection or exclusion of rejection. Dd-cfDNA indicates graft cell death without being rejection specific. It can be determined in plasma through droplet digital PCR using preselected SNPs or next generation sequencing. Changes in recipient cfDNA (e.g., by infection) can affect the results of dd-cfDNA fractional determination. This limitation can be overcome using absolute dd-cfDNA quantification. The combination of fractional and absolute determination including total cfDNA is recommended for meaningful interpretation of the results. The value proposition for the patient includes earlier transplant injury detection and intervention, less full blown rejection risk, an alternative to invasive biopsies, and personalized immunosuppression with potential for improved long-term outcome. Transplant physicians benefit from better immunosuppressive guidance and having an alternative when biopsies are refused or contraindicated. Further advantages are improved biopsy interpretation, less trial and error changes in immunosuppression, and less time dealing with complications. The laboratory medicine specialist can provide more effective services. Hospital management and insurance companies could benefit from more cost-effective surveillance of transplant recipients. Potential cost savings would result from fewer biopsies as a result of the tests’ high negative predictive value, fewer re-transplantations, and less organ failure with return to dialysis. A pathway to implementation and metrics is suggested to measure the effectiveness of dd-cfDNA testing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9634115
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96341152022-11-05 Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation Oellerich, Michael Budde, Klemens Osmanodja, Bilgin Bornemann-Kolatzki, Kirsten Beck, Julia Schütz, Ekkehard Walson, Philip D. Front Genet Genetics There is a need to improve personalized immunosuppression in organ transplantation to reduce premature graft loss. Biomarkers are needed to better detect rejection, asymptomatic graft injury, and under-immunosuppression. Assessment of minimal necessary exposure to guide tapering and prevent immune activation is also important. There is robust clinical evidence from a large number of published studies supporting the role of dd-cfDNA for monitoring graft integrity and detection or exclusion of rejection. Dd-cfDNA indicates graft cell death without being rejection specific. It can be determined in plasma through droplet digital PCR using preselected SNPs or next generation sequencing. Changes in recipient cfDNA (e.g., by infection) can affect the results of dd-cfDNA fractional determination. This limitation can be overcome using absolute dd-cfDNA quantification. The combination of fractional and absolute determination including total cfDNA is recommended for meaningful interpretation of the results. The value proposition for the patient includes earlier transplant injury detection and intervention, less full blown rejection risk, an alternative to invasive biopsies, and personalized immunosuppression with potential for improved long-term outcome. Transplant physicians benefit from better immunosuppressive guidance and having an alternative when biopsies are refused or contraindicated. Further advantages are improved biopsy interpretation, less trial and error changes in immunosuppression, and less time dealing with complications. The laboratory medicine specialist can provide more effective services. Hospital management and insurance companies could benefit from more cost-effective surveillance of transplant recipients. Potential cost savings would result from fewer biopsies as a result of the tests’ high negative predictive value, fewer re-transplantations, and less organ failure with return to dialysis. A pathway to implementation and metrics is suggested to measure the effectiveness of dd-cfDNA testing. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9634115/ /pubmed/36339004 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1031894 Text en Copyright © 2022 Oellerich, Budde, Osmanodja, Bornemann-Kolatzki, Beck, Schütz and Walson. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Genetics
Oellerich, Michael
Budde, Klemens
Osmanodja, Bilgin
Bornemann-Kolatzki, Kirsten
Beck, Julia
Schütz, Ekkehard
Walson, Philip D.
Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
title Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
title_full Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
title_fullStr Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
title_full_unstemmed Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
title_short Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
title_sort donor-derived cell-free dna as a diagnostic tool in transplantation
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36339004
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1031894
work_keys_str_mv AT oellerichmichael donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation
AT buddeklemens donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation
AT osmanodjabilgin donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation
AT bornemannkolatzkikirsten donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation
AT beckjulia donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation
AT schutzekkehard donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation
AT walsonphilipd donorderivedcellfreednaasadiagnostictoolintransplantation