Serum and urine nucleic acid screening tests for BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD014839.pub2
Thida Maung Myint, Chanel H Chong, Amy von Huben, John Attia, Angela C Webster, Christopher D Blosser, Jonathan C Craig, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Germaine Wong
{"title":"Serum and urine nucleic acid screening tests for BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients.","authors":"Thida Maung Myint, Chanel H Chong, Amy von Huben, John Attia, Angela C Webster, Christopher D Blosser, Jonathan C Craig, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Germaine Wong","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD014839.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN) occurs when BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) affects a transplanted kidney, leading to an initial injury characterised by cytopathic damage, inflammation, and fibrosis. BKPyVAN may cause permanent loss of graft function and premature graft loss. Early detection gives clinicians an opportunity to intervene by timely reduction in immunosuppression to reduce adverse graft outcomes. Quantitative nucleic acid testing (QNAT) for detection of BKPyV DNA in blood and urine is increasingly used as a screening test as diagnosis of BKPyVAN by kidney biopsy is invasive and associated with procedural risks. In this review, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of QNAT tests in patients with BKPyVAN.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We assessed the diagnostic test accuracy of blood/plasma/serum BKPyV QNAT and urine BKPyV QNAT for the diagnosis of BKPyVAN after transplantation. We also investigated the following sources of heterogeneity: types and quality of studies, era of publication, various thresholds of BKPyV-DNAemia/BKPyV viruria and variability between assays as secondary objectives.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and BIOSIS, and requested a search of the Cochrane Register of diagnostic test accuracy studies from inception to 13 June 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.com and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included cross-sectional or cohort studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of two index tests (blood/plasma/serum BKPyV QNAT or urine BKPyV QNAT) for the diagnosis of BKPyVAN, as verified by the reference standard (histopathology). Both retrospective and prospective cohort studies were included. We did not include case reports and case control studies.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two authors independently carried out data extraction from each study. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) assessment criteria. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the QNAT test with one positivity threshold. In cases where meta-analyses were not possible due to the small number of studies available, we detailed the descriptive evidence and used a summative approach. We explored possible sources of heterogeneity by adding covariates to meta-regression models.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 31 relevant studies with a total of 6559 participants in this review. Twenty-six studies included kidney transplant recipients, four studies included kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients, and one study included kidney, kidney-pancreas and kidney-liver transplant recipients. Studies were carried out in South Asia and the Asia-Pacific region (12 studies), North America (9 studies), Europe (8 studies), and South America (2 studies).</p><p><strong>Index test: </strong>blood/serum/plasma BKPyV QNAT The diagnostic performance of blood BKPyV QNAT using a common viral load threshold of 10,000 copies/mL was reported in 18 studies (3434 participants). Summary estimates at 10,000 copies/mL as a cut-off indicated that the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.93) while the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97). A limited number of studies were available to analyse the summary estimates for individual viral load thresholds other than 10,000 copies/mL. Indirect comparison of thresholds of the three different cut-off values of 1000 copies/mL (9 studies), 5000 copies/mL (6 studies), and 10,000 copies/mL (18 studies), the higher cut-off value at 10,000 copies/mL corresponded to higher specificity with lower sensitivity. The summary estimates of indirect comparison of thresholds above 10,000 copies/mL were uncertain, primarily due to a limited number of studies with wide CIs contributed to the analysis. Nonetheless, these indirect comparisons should be interpreted cautiously since differences in study design, patient populations, and methodological variations among the included studies can introduce biases. Analysis of all blood BKPyV QNAT studies, including various blood viral load thresholds (30 studies, 5658 participants, 7 thresholds), indicated that test performance remains robust, pooled sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) and specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95). In the multiple cut-off model, including the various thresholds generating a single curve, the optimal cut-off was around 2000 copies/mL, sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93). However, as most of the included studies were retrospective, and not all participants underwent the reference standard tests, this may result in a high risk of selection and verification bias.</p><p><strong>Index test: </strong>urine BKPyV QNAT There was insufficient data to thoroughly investigate both accuracy and thresholds of urine BKPyV QNAT resulting in an imprecise estimation of its accuracy based on the available evidence.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to suggest the use of urine BKPyV QNAT as the primary screening tool for BKPyVAN. The summary estimates of the test sensitivity and specificity of blood/serum/plasma BKPyV QNAT test at a threshold of 10,000 copies/mL for BKPyVAN were 0.86 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), respectively. The multiple cut-off model showed that the optimal cut-off was around 2000 copies/mL, with test sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93). While 10,000 copies/mL is the most commonly used cut-off, with good test performance characteristics and supports the current recommendations, it is important to interpret the results with caution because of low-certainty evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"11 ","pages":"CD014839"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014839.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN) occurs when BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) affects a transplanted kidney, leading to an initial injury characterised by cytopathic damage, inflammation, and fibrosis. BKPyVAN may cause permanent loss of graft function and premature graft loss. Early detection gives clinicians an opportunity to intervene by timely reduction in immunosuppression to reduce adverse graft outcomes. Quantitative nucleic acid testing (QNAT) for detection of BKPyV DNA in blood and urine is increasingly used as a screening test as diagnosis of BKPyVAN by kidney biopsy is invasive and associated with procedural risks. In this review, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of QNAT tests in patients with BKPyVAN.

Objectives: We assessed the diagnostic test accuracy of blood/plasma/serum BKPyV QNAT and urine BKPyV QNAT for the diagnosis of BKPyVAN after transplantation. We also investigated the following sources of heterogeneity: types and quality of studies, era of publication, various thresholds of BKPyV-DNAemia/BKPyV viruria and variability between assays as secondary objectives.

Search methods: We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and BIOSIS, and requested a search of the Cochrane Register of diagnostic test accuracy studies from inception to 13 June 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.com and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.

Selection criteria: We included cross-sectional or cohort studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of two index tests (blood/plasma/serum BKPyV QNAT or urine BKPyV QNAT) for the diagnosis of BKPyVAN, as verified by the reference standard (histopathology). Both retrospective and prospective cohort studies were included. We did not include case reports and case control studies.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently carried out data extraction from each study. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) assessment criteria. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the QNAT test with one positivity threshold. In cases where meta-analyses were not possible due to the small number of studies available, we detailed the descriptive evidence and used a summative approach. We explored possible sources of heterogeneity by adding covariates to meta-regression models.

Main results: We included 31 relevant studies with a total of 6559 participants in this review. Twenty-six studies included kidney transplant recipients, four studies included kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients, and one study included kidney, kidney-pancreas and kidney-liver transplant recipients. Studies were carried out in South Asia and the Asia-Pacific region (12 studies), North America (9 studies), Europe (8 studies), and South America (2 studies).

Index test: blood/serum/plasma BKPyV QNAT The diagnostic performance of blood BKPyV QNAT using a common viral load threshold of 10,000 copies/mL was reported in 18 studies (3434 participants). Summary estimates at 10,000 copies/mL as a cut-off indicated that the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.93) while the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97). A limited number of studies were available to analyse the summary estimates for individual viral load thresholds other than 10,000 copies/mL. Indirect comparison of thresholds of the three different cut-off values of 1000 copies/mL (9 studies), 5000 copies/mL (6 studies), and 10,000 copies/mL (18 studies), the higher cut-off value at 10,000 copies/mL corresponded to higher specificity with lower sensitivity. The summary estimates of indirect comparison of thresholds above 10,000 copies/mL were uncertain, primarily due to a limited number of studies with wide CIs contributed to the analysis. Nonetheless, these indirect comparisons should be interpreted cautiously since differences in study design, patient populations, and methodological variations among the included studies can introduce biases. Analysis of all blood BKPyV QNAT studies, including various blood viral load thresholds (30 studies, 5658 participants, 7 thresholds), indicated that test performance remains robust, pooled sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) and specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95). In the multiple cut-off model, including the various thresholds generating a single curve, the optimal cut-off was around 2000 copies/mL, sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93). However, as most of the included studies were retrospective, and not all participants underwent the reference standard tests, this may result in a high risk of selection and verification bias.

Index test: urine BKPyV QNAT There was insufficient data to thoroughly investigate both accuracy and thresholds of urine BKPyV QNAT resulting in an imprecise estimation of its accuracy based on the available evidence.

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to suggest the use of urine BKPyV QNAT as the primary screening tool for BKPyVAN. The summary estimates of the test sensitivity and specificity of blood/serum/plasma BKPyV QNAT test at a threshold of 10,000 copies/mL for BKPyVAN were 0.86 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), respectively. The multiple cut-off model showed that the optimal cut-off was around 2000 copies/mL, with test sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93). While 10,000 copies/mL is the most commonly used cut-off, with good test performance characteristics and supports the current recommendations, it is important to interpret the results with caution because of low-certainty evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肾移植和肾胰移植受者 BK 多瘤病毒相关肾病的血清和尿液核酸筛查试验。
背景:当 BK 多瘤病毒(BKPyV)影响移植肾,导致以细胞病理损伤、炎症和纤维化为特征的初始损伤时,就会发生 BK 多瘤病毒相关性肾病(BKPyVAN)。BKPyVAN 可导致移植肾功能永久丧失和过早移植。早期发现可使临床医生有机会通过及时减少免疫抑制进行干预,以减少不良移植结果。检测血液和尿液中 BKPyV DNA 的定量核酸检测(QNAT)正越来越多地被用作筛查试验,因为通过肾活检诊断 BKPyVAN 具有侵入性并伴有手术风险。在这篇综述中,我们评估了 QNAT 检测对 BKPyVAN 患者的敏感性和特异性:我们评估了血液/血浆/血清 BKPyV QNAT 和尿液 BKPyV QNAT 对移植后 BKPyVAN 诊断的准确性。我们还调查了以下异质性来源:研究的类型和质量、发表时间、BKPyV-DNA血症/BKPyV病毒血症的不同阈值以及不同检测方法之间的差异,以此作为次要目标:我们检索了 MEDLINE (OvidSP)、EMBASE (OvidSP) 和 BIOSIS,并要求检索 Cochrane Register 中从开始到 2023 年 6 月 13 日的诊断测试准确性研究。我们还搜索了ClinicalTrials.com和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台,以了解正在进行的试验:我们纳入了评估两种指标检测(血液/血浆/血清 BKPyV QNAT 或尿液 BKPyV QNAT)诊断 BKPyVAN 准确性的横断面或队列研究,并通过参考标准(组织病理学)进行验证。我们纳入了回顾性和前瞻性队列研究。我们未纳入病例报告和病例对照研究:两位作者独立完成了每项研究的数据提取。我们采用诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)评估标准对纳入研究的方法学质量进行了评估。我们使用双变量随机效应模型对 QNAT 检测的敏感性和特异性进行了汇总估计,并设定了一个阳性阈值。在因研究数量较少而无法进行荟萃分析的情况下,我们详细分析了描述性证据,并采用了总结性方法。我们在元回归模型中加入了协变量,从而探讨了异质性的可能来源:本综述共纳入了 31 项相关研究,共有 6559 名参与者。26项研究纳入了肾移植受者,4项研究纳入了肾脏和肾胰脏移植受者,1项研究纳入了肾脏、肾胰脏和肾脏-肝脏移植受者。研究分别在南亚和亚太地区(12 项研究)、北美(9 项研究)、欧洲(8 项研究)和南美(2 项研究)进行。指标检测:血液/血清/血浆 BKPyV QNAT 18 项研究(3434 名参与者)报告了血液 BKPyV QNAT 的诊断性能,使用的通用病毒载量阈值为 10,000 拷贝/毫升。以 10,000 拷贝/毫升为临界值的汇总估计值表明,汇总灵敏度为 0.86(95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.78 至 0.93),而汇总特异度为 0.95(95% CI 0.91 至 0.97)。用于分析 10,000 拷贝/毫升以外的单个病毒载量阈值的汇总估计值的研究数量有限。对 1000 copies/mL(9 项研究)、5000 copies/mL(6 项研究)和 10,000 copies/mL(18 项研究)三种不同临界值的间接比较显示,10,000 copies/mL临界值越高,特异性越高,灵敏度越低。10,000 拷贝/毫升以上阈值间接比较的汇总估计值不确定,主要原因是参与分析的研究数量有限,CIs 较宽。尽管如此,这些间接比较结果仍需谨慎解释,因为研究设计、患者人群的不同以及所纳入研究在方法上的差异都可能带来偏差。对所有血液 BKPyV QNAT 研究(包括不同的血液病毒载量阈值)(30 项研究,5658 名参与者,7 个阈值)的分析表明,检测性能仍然很稳定,汇总灵敏度为 0.90(95% CI 0.85 至 0.94),特异性为 0.93(95% CI 0.91 至 0.95)。在多重临界值模型中,包括生成单一曲线的各种临界值,最佳临界值约为 2000 拷贝/毫升,灵敏度为 0.89(95% CI 0.66 至 0.97),特异性为 0.88(95% CI 0.80 至 0.93)。然而,由于纳入的大多数研究都是回顾性的,而且并非所有参与者都接受了参考标准检测,这可能会导致较高的选择和验证偏倚风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
期刊最新文献
Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment in adults. Fenoldopam for preventing and treating acute kidney injury. Resistance training for fatigue in people with cancer. Serum and urine nucleic acid screening tests for BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients. Time to publication for results of clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1