Background. The urine C-X-C motif chemokine 10 (CXCL10) is a promising screening biomarker for renal allograft rejection. The aim of the study was to investigate important technical and biological aspects as well as potential confounders when measuring urine CXCL10. Methods. We analyzed 595 urine samples from 117 patients, who participated in a randomized controlled trial investigating the clinical utility of urine CXCL10 monitoring for posttransplant management. Urine CXCL10 was measured by an immunoassay using electrochemiluminescence. Results. Intraassay coefficient of variation was 2.5%, and interassay coefficient of variation was 10%. Urine CXCL10 remained stable (ie, <10% degradation) for 8 hours at 25°C or 37°C and for 3 days at 4°C. CXCL10 concentrations [pg/mL] strongly correlated with urine CXCL10/creatinine ratios [ng/mmol] (r2 = 0.98; P < 0.0001). Leucocyturia and active BK-polyomavirus infection are associated with higher CXCL10 concentrations, while allograft function, serum CRP, patient age, proteinuria, urine pH, hematuria, squamous epithelia cell count, and bacteriuria did not correlate with urine CXCL10 concentrations. In 145 paired samples obtained within 1–2 weeks, 80% showed a CXCL10/creatinine ratio change of < ±2 ng/mmol or ±50%, respectively. Conclusions. Urine CXCL10 measurement on the used platform is accurate and robust. Leucocyturia and active BK-polyomavirus infection are major confounders, which can be easily detected but represent important diagnostic “blind spots” when using urine CXCL10 to screen for allograft rejection. The intraindividual biological variability of urine CXCL10 within 1–2 weeks is mostly below ±50%, which is still much higher than the technical variability due to sample handling/processing (<20%).

Significance Statement This study is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate the clinical utility of a noninvasive monitoring biomarker in renal transplantation. Although urine CXCL10 monitoring could not demonstrate a beneficial effect on 1-year outcomes, the study is a rich source for future design of trials aiming to explore the clinical utility of noninvasive biomarkers. In addition, the study supports the use of urine CXCL10 to assess the inflammatory status of the renal allograft. Background Urine CXCL10 is a promising noninvasive biomarker for detection of renal allograft rejection. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical utility of renal allograft monitoring by urine CXCL10 in a randomized trial. Methods We stratified 241 patients, 120 into an intervention and 121 into a control arm. In both arms, urine CXCL10 levels were monitored at three specific time points (1, 3, and 6 months post-transplant). In the intervention arm, elevated values triggered performance of an allograft biopsy with therapeutic adaptations according to the result. In the control arm, urine CXCL10 was measured, but the results concealed. The primary outcome was a combined end point at 1-year post-transplant (death-censored graft loss, clinical rejection between month 1 and 1-year, acute rejection in 1-year surveillance biopsy, chronic active T-cell–mediated rejection in 1-year surveillance biopsy, development of de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies, or eGFR <25 ml/min). Results The incidence of the primary outcome was not different between the intervention and the control arm (51% versus 49%; relative risk (RR), 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.34]; P = 0.80). When including 175 of 241 (73%) patients in a per-protocol analysis, the incidence of the primary outcome was also not different (55% versus 49%; RR, 1.11 [95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.47]; P = 0.54). The incidence of the individual end points was not different as well. Conclusions This study could not demonstrate a beneficial effect of urine CXCL10 monitoring on 1-year outcomes (ClinicalTrials.gov_NCT03140514).

Background. Urine CXCL10 (C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10, interferon gamma-induced protein 10 [IP10]) outperforms standard-of-care monitoring for detecting subclinical and early clinical T-cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) and may advance TCMR therapy development through biomarker-enriched trials. The goal was to perform an international multicenter validation of a CXCL10 bead-based immunoassay (Luminex) for transplant surveillance and compare with an electrochemiluminescence-based (Meso Scale Discovery [MSD]) assay used in transplant trials. Methods. Four laboratories participated in the Luminex assay development and evaluation. Urine CXCL10 was measured by Luminex and MSD in 2 independent adult kidney transplant trial cohorts (Basel and TMCT04). In an independent test and validation set, a linear mixed-effects model to predict (log10-transformed) MSD CXCL10 from Luminex CXCL10 was developed to determine the conversion between assays. Net reclassification was determined after mathematical conversion. Results. The Luminex assay was precise, with an intra- and interassay coefficient of variation 8.1% and 9.3%; showed modest agreement between 4 laboratories (R 0.96 to 0.99, P < 0.001); and correlated with known CXCL10 in a single- (n = 100 urines, R 0.94 to 0.98, P < 0.001) and multicenter cohort (n = 468 urines, R 0.92, P < 0.001) but the 2 assays were not equivalent by Passing–Bablok regression. Linear mixed-effects modeling demonstrated an intercept of −0.490 and coefficient of 1.028, showing Luminex CXCL10 are slightly higher than MSD CXCL10, but the agreement is close to 1.0. After conversion of the biopsy thresholds, the decision to biopsy would be changed for only 6% (5/85) patients showing acceptable reclassification. Conclusions. These data demonstrate this urine CXCL10 Luminex immunoassay is robust, reproducible, and accurate, indicating it can be readily translated into clinical HLA laboratories for serial posttransplant surveillance.

Background. Urine CXCL10 is a biomarker for renal allograft inflammation induced by rejection, urinary tract infection, or BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) replication. This study aimed to compare urine CXCL10 levels in different stages of BKPyV reactivation and to investigate urine CXCL10 as a biomarker for BKPyV replication. Methods. We included 763 urine samples (235 patients) from an interventional, randomized trial obtained in the context of regular screening for urine CXCL10 levels. All urine samples had a complete urine sediment analysis, no rejection episode noted within 30 d before urine collection, and a urine decoy cell analysis was conducted within ±3 d. Results. Urine CXCL10 levels were 2.31 ng/mmol in samples without BKPyV viruria, slightly rose to 4.35 ng/mmol with BKPyV viruria, and then markedly increased to 16.42 ng/mmol when decoy cells were detectable, but still in the absence of BKPyV DNAemia (P < 0.001). The highest urine CXCL10 values were observed in samples with BKPyV DNAemia (median 42.59 ng/mmol). The area under the curve of urine CXCL10 levels to detect ≥3 decoy cells was 0.816. At a CXCL10 cutoff of 3 ng/mmol, the negative predictive value was 97%. The area under the curve of urine CXCL10 levels to detect BKPyV DNAemia was 0.882, with a negative predictive value of 99% at a CXCL10 cutoff of 3 ng/mmol. Conclusions. Urine CXCL10 levels are already significantly elevated in BKPyV viruria (especially with decoy cell shedding) and further increase with BKPyV DNAemia. Low urine CXCL10 values can rule out the presence of ≥3 decoy cells and BKPyV DNAemia with high certainty.