Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42157907›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine

Qualified prediction system for allograft failure in real world settings: extended validation study.

Marc Raynaud, Agathe Truchot, Sofia Naser, Olivier Aubert, Gillian Divard, Thibaut Thalamas, Yannis Lombardi, Christophe Legendre, Elodie Bailly, Mathias Buchler and 31 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

41 authors.

Marc RaynaudUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.
Agathe TruchotUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.
Sofia NaserUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.
Olivier AubertKidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6284-3757
Gillian DivardUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3450-0033
Thibaut ThalamasUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.
Yannis LombardiUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9031-1862
Christophe LegendreKidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Elodie BaillyNephrology and Immunology Department, Bretonneau Hospital, Tours, France.
Mathias BuchlerNephrology and Immunology Department, Bretonneau Hospital, Tours, France.
Marta CrespoDepartment of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6992-6379
Dolores RedondoDepartment of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Brad C AstorDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Didier MandelbrotDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Sandesh ParajuliDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Ivana JuricUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.
Nikolina Basic-JukicDepartment of Nephrology, Arterial Hypertension, Dialysis and Transplantation, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ilkka HelanteräDepartment of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Rhys D R EvansCentre for Kidney and Bladder Health, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Aruna SangheraCentre for Kidney and Bladder Health, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Maryam JavedCentre for Kidney and Bladder Health, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Miklos Z MolnarDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9665-330X
Junji YamauchiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Katalin FornadiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Transplantation and Advanced Hepatobiliary Surgery, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3679-4503
Kamilla LinharesUniversidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Hospital do Rim, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Michel BaujardAssociation "Le Flambeau de la Vie", Paris, France.
Kevin J FowlerThe Voice of the Patient, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Enver AkalinAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Renal Division Montefiore Medical Center, Kidney Transplantation Program, Bronx, New York, New York, USA.
Gaurav GuptaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Gervacio Soler PujolUnidad de Trasplante Renopancreas, Centro de Educacion Medica e Investigaciones Clinicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Helio Tedesco-SilvaUniversidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Hospital do Rim, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Babak J OrandiNYU Grossman School of Medicine, Departments of Surgery and Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Maarten NaesensDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Transplantation, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Klemens BuddeDepartment of Nephrology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marcel NaikDepartment of Nephrology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alexandre HertigDepartment of Transplantation, Nephrology, and Clinical Immunology, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Dany AnglicheauKidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Nassim KamarDepartment of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, Toulouse Rangueil University Hospital, INSERM UMR 1291, Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Dorry L SegevNYU Grossman School of Medicine, Departments of Surgery and Population Health, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1924-4801
Carmen LefaucheurUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.
Alexandre LoupyUniversité de Paris Cité, INSERM, PARCC U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration (PITOR), Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3388-7747

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To perform comprehensive validations of the integrative Box (iBox) system, a prediction model for long term risk of kidney allograft failure, for extension of its context of use in clinical trials as well as for its wider implementation in clinical practice. Design: Extended validation study. Setting: Paris Transplant Group database (comprising kidney recipients with transplantations between 1 January 2005 and 1 January 2014) and European, North American, and South American hospitals (comprising recipients of kidneys transplanted beween 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2022). Patients were followed until 1 November 2024. Participants: 12 683 kidney tranplant recipients from 21 academic centres in Europe, North America, and South America; 4000 patients in the derivation cohort and 8683 in the validation cohorts. Main outcome measures: Performance of the iBox, including flexible iBox versions in specific clinical contexts (race-free estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations (ie, without including race as a factor in the calculation), in specific clinical contexts (initial nephropathy recurrence, BK virus associated nephropathy, and different immunosuppressive strategies), and over-extended follow-up periods. Predictive performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, overall fit, and clinical utility. Results: 12 683 kidney transplant recipients were included in the study (n=4000 in the derivation cohort and n=8683 in the validation cohorts). Median follow-up time after risk evaluation was 5.78 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.51-7.00) in the derivation cohort and 4.68 years (2.48-7.00) in the validation cohorts. 549 (13.7%) and 991 (11.4%) patients had graft loss in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. All versions of the iBox algorithm maintained good discrimination and overall fit performance in the derivation and validation cohorts (C index range 0.79-0.87, Brier scores 0.08-0.11). Calibration was adequate in some but not all external validation cohorts, with trends toward overestimation or underestimation of predicted risks. Decision curve analysis showed positive and comparable net benefit for all iBox algorithms across decision thresholds up to 40% in the derivation cohort (net benefit 0.07-0.08 at 20% threshold) and validation cohorts (net benefit 0.03-0.11 at 20% threshold). Accounting for the competing risk of death with a functioning graft resulted in similar performance, except for calibration which varied across cohorts, without any model consistently outperforming any other model. The model performed well with different race-free eGFR equations (C index 0.81), in various clinical scenarios, including disease recurrence and BK virus nephropathy, with different immunosuppressive strategies, such as calcineurin inhibitors and mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin) inhibitors (C index range 0.74-0.87), and when extending the prediction period to 10 years after risk evaluation (C index 0.79). The iBox predictive performance was not modified when various histological indices were used. The iBox was also superior to eGFR slope (C index 0.81 Conclusions: In this study, the robust predictive performance of the iBox system across diverse real world settings and clinical scenarios was shown. These results highlight the versatility and reliability of the iBox system, and support its use for risk stratification in routine clinical practice and as a surrogate endpoint for clinical trials.

Indexed as

Kidney transplantationPrognosisStatistics

Identifiers

PMID42157907
PMCPMC13182363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.