APOL1 risk variants and kidney transplantation: a protocol for systematic review andmeta-analysis

Background Graft survival post-kidney transplant may be inuenced by APOL1 risk variant status of both donors and recipients. There are several conicting reports on screening, eligibility and inclusion of APOL1 risk variant testing in the Kidney Donor Risk Index. We aimed to produce a protocol for synthesizing evidence from available data on Apoprotein L1 risk variants and kidney transplantation. METHODS: We developed a search strategy using MeSH, text words and entry terms. Nine databases will be searched: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, AJOL, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Research gate and Scopus. Only observational studies retrievable in the English Language will be included. The primary measurable outcome is the recipient’s post-transplant graft survival time from APOL1 high-risk variant donors. The secondary outcomes are the proportion of APOL1 high-risk variants in End-Stage Kidney Disease requiring a kidney transplant, the proportion in graft recipients and kidney donors; the effect of APOL1 high-risk variant on donor's kidney function post-kidney donation, recipient kidney allograft survival in APOL1 low and high-risk recipients. Deduplication, screening, and selection of identied studies will be done using Covidence software while CMA software version 3 will be used for meta-analysis. All studies will be assessed for methodological, clinical, and statistical heterogeneity. Publication bias will be visually assessed using the funnel plot. Results will be presented in forest plots with pooled survival time, standard error, and variance. Subgroup analysis will be performed using moderators such as socio-demographics: race, age, gender, and socio-economic status; hypertension, HIV status, forms of rejection, and other environmental factors. Discussion: The effect size for the primary outcome is a standardized mean difference in survival time for APOL1 high-risk variants in kidney transplants. The changes in kidney functions of donors and recipients pre and post-transplantation would be examined. The suitability of donors who have APOL1 high-risk variants will be explored in relation to graft survival time, donors' kidney function, and moderating effects of socio-demographic and environmental determinants. Trial Number: This protocol is registered in

with pooled survival time, standard error, and variance. Subgroup analysis will be performed using moderators such as socio-demographics: race, age, gender, and socio-economic status; hypertension, HIV status, forms of rejection, and other environmental factors.
Discussion: The effect size for the primary outcome is a standardized mean difference in survival time for APOL1 high-risk variants in kidney transplants. The changes in kidney functions of donors and recipients pre and post-transplantation would be examined. The suitability of donors who have APOL1 high-risk variants will be explored in relation to graft survival time, donors' kidney function, and moderating effects of socio-demographic and environmental determinants.
Trial Registration Number: This protocol is registered in PROSPERO, with registration number CRD42021230358 Background Living donor kidney transplant account for 90% of kidney transplant in low middle-income countries especially in the sub Saharan Africa. (1) Thus, the pool of donors are living members of the public sharing the same genetic risks and modi able factors with the recipients. (2,3) The increasing selection criteria and eligibility for kidney transplantation may have improved the safety of kidney transplant as a procedure, the gaps, however, between organ demand and accessibility appears to be widened. (4-6) A recent review showed that a widening gap and disparity of living kidney donor and allograft recipient disproportionately impact the black population much more than the white counterpart (3). Purnell et al (8) suggested an ethnic group targeted education and orientation on the bene t of renal transplant for patients with end stage kidney diseae (ESKD), highlighting the potentially limited risk of donating kidney. This will be the right direction to address organ shortage and closure of the ethnic-related chasm. (8) There are controversies on the criteria for safety of organ donations in speci c populations because of certain inherent peculiarities and delicate balance for organ availability. (6) Organ donation at the expense of donor's safety could bear severe negative consequences on altruistic donors. Besides, a poor graft survival on the part of recipients renders this procedure worthless. (8,9) Therefore, it may be reasonable to ne tune screening criteria based on available evidence and weight of risk versus bene t to suit local resources. Some of the selection criteria may include screening for genetic factors such as APOL1 risk variant (genotype). APOL1 gene is a genetic risk marker linked to the development of nondiabetic kidney disease in the people of African ancestry. Its development in this sub-population occurs as an adaptive epigenetics sequel to a natural selection process that followed infection with Trypanosoma sp. (10,11) The exposure to Trypanosoma sp infection could result in the development of 2 forms of high risk alleles associated with kidney diseases referred to as APOL1 G1 and APOL1 G2. (10,11) The APOL1 G1 and G2 variants protect from trypanosomiasis but predispose to the development of nondiabetic kidney diseases often referred to as APOL1 associated nephropathy. (10,11) Up to 12-13% of African Americans have the two renal risk variants of the APOL1 gene that predispose to kidney disease. (12) Several studies have however shown that the presence of high-risk APOL1 alleles alone was associated with minimal risk for the development of APLO1 induced kidney disease among individuals of recent African ancestry. (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18) The authors suggested the presence of a second hit or a modifying factor for the at-risk to develop kidney disease in the presence of high risk. (18) This mechanism has been postulated to be associated with the development of focal sclerosis and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) and rapid disease progression in patients with HIV-associated nephropathies. (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18) Studies by Kofman et al (19) and Zwang et a l (20) showed that transplants of a kidney from a living donor with two APOL1 renal risk variants (RRVs) could lead to de novo development of FSGS with early allograft failure in the recipient, and the development of ESKD in a previously healthy donor. (19,20) The aforementioned report supports a cohort study involving 136 living donors of African ancestry who had two APOL1 RRVs after a median 12 years follow-up. (21) The report showed lower baseline eGFR in the donors, higher eGFR decline post-donation and an 11% rapid progression to ESKD within the follow-up period. We aimed to produce a protocol for consistent and transparent systematic review and meta-analysis using available data on Apoprotein L1 risk variants, outcomes and modi ers of kidney transplantation.

Methods And Design
Objectives: The main objective of this study is to determine the effects of APOL1 high-risk variants on the recipient's kidney graft survival time, reported in standardized mean difference, and donor kidney function post kidney transplant. This is a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on APOL1 risk variants and kidney transplant. This protocol is designed to enable a reliable and accurate systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of APOL1 risk variants on renal function of donor and recipient post-renal transplant. Using this protocol will enable determination of pooled effect sizes of graft survival (standardized mean difference, g) from donors with APOL1 high-risk variants, donors kidney function post organ donation and to assess suitability of including APOL1 risk variant status in the Kidney Donor Risk Index. There is no timeframe or restriction in selecting eligible studies using this protocol.
In addition to study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be applied in selecting eligible studies. PICOs: The details for participants, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICOs) are shown in Table 1.
This review will be reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2015 Statement). (27) The Protocol has the PRISMA-P Checklist attached as a supplementary material.

Information sources
The search will use sensitive topic-based strategies designed for each database. The search will be carried out in the following databases: PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, RESEARCHGATE, AJOL, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE LIBRARY. Only observational studies will be included.

Search strategy
The search strategy includes MESH terms, text words and entry terms. Table 2 shows the search strategies as used in the PubMed. The same search strategy will be used in the other databases with slight modi cations.

Data Extraction and Management a. Data Extraction
Three main tools will be used for data extraction and management: a) Covidence software and b) Microsoft Excel c) CMA Version 3 Software Six levels of data screening will be used for searched studies: i. Level 1 would involve screening of identi ed studies for the study design. Only observational studies, retrievable in the English Language would be selected.
ii. Level 2 will involve screening of studies in the titles and abstracts using entry terms, keywords and meSH terms.
iii. At Level 3, studies will be further screened for content by reading the full text article using the same search strategy.
iv. Level 4 will involve snowballing of literature on references from included studies.
v. Level 5 will involve grey literature that report primary outcome and or secondary outcomes.
vi. Level 6, studies will be screened for outcomes, primary and secondary outcomes.
Eight reviewers are involved in this study. A pair of reviewers will independently screen the identi ed articles for eligibility using Covidence software. (28) The two reviewers will be blinded from each other using the screening tool. Con ict between the paired reviewers shall be resolved by a third reviewer who would will serve as a tie -breaker. The data of all screened studies will be deduplicated and exported to CMA version 3 for analysis. (29) Snowballing search of relevant studies through the review of the references of selected studies and grey literature will be performed manually.
b. Selection Process: Agreement between two independent and blinded reviewers who screened titles, abstracts, full texts of eligible observational studies, snowballed articles and grey literature will form the basis for selecting studies for inclusion for systematic review and meta-analysis. Where there are con icts in decision, this will be resolved by a third reviewer. Authors of eligible studies with any missing data will be contacted via email and telephone.
c. Data Collection Process: Extractable data items from selected studies will include the following: 6. The proportion of the modi able factors besides APOL1 high-risk variants.
7. The adjusted risk ratio of the modi able factors besides APOL1 high-risk variants.

Effect Sizes
The primary effect size is standardized mean difference, g.
Different primary indexes in individual studies of same design and report outcome will be converted to prevalence in the CMA Software.
Categorical outcomes: race, gender and socio-economic status; hypertension, HIV status, forms of rejection and other environmental factors, will be used for subgroup analysis.
Numerical outcomes such as age, kidney function variables will be used for meta-regression.

Data synthesis
The criteria for data synthesis is a follows: a. Studies that passed the methodological quality assessment using the NIH quality assessment tool for observational studies will be extracted. The results will be presented in tabular format.
b. in addition to a narrative synthesis, the following will be included in the meta-analysis: 1. Studies with primary outcome will be included for systematic review. The primary outcome is standardized mean difference (g) in recipients' graft survival time for donations involving APOL1 high risk variant donors.
2. Studies with both primary and secondary outcomes will be included for meta-analysis.
c. Quantitative analysis Criteria for Quantitative data Synthesis Studies that are used in narrative synthesis, which also report both primary and secondary outcomes will be included for meta-analysis. Data items will be used to generate standardized mean difference, standard error, variance and 95% con dence interval. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the Q statistics and its p-value, tau 2 and the Higgins I 2 . I² values of less than 40% will be considered low heterogeneity while values > 40 but < 75 % will be considered moderate and values > 75% are high. A random-effect model will be used for computation in this study. A sensitivity analysis will be performed to check for outlying studies and their effects on standardized mean difference, pooled mean and SD for changes in eGFR. Publication bias in the selection of studies will be visually assessed on the funnel plot (trim and ll method) and tested for asymmetry. Other statistical tests such as Egger's regression intercept, Begg and Mazumdar's rank correlation and Orwin's fail-safe N will be used where appropriate.
For each included study, the primary outcome which is the standardized mean difference (g) in recipient's graft survival time for donations from APOL1 high risk variant donors will be used in calculating the pooled g value, standard error, variance and 95% CI of variance. This will be reported in forest plots.
Sub-group analysis will be performed using categorical data such as race, gender, socio-economic status, forms of rejection, hypertension, HIV status and any modi able factor. All subgroup analysis will be presented in forest plots.
Meta-regression will be performed on quantitative explanatory variables such as changes in eGFR in donor and recipient before and after transplant, age and proteinuria (if quanti ed).

Risk of bias
The risk of bias will be assessed for each included study using the National Institute of Health (NIH) Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. The NIH Quality assessment tool has 14 questions. Scores above 7 show good quality study with less bias. This will be cross-checked with the Cochrane tool of risk of bias assessment. Studies with extreme bias will be subjected to sensitivity testing using the include/exclude function in the CMA Software.

Assessment of Meta-bias
Meta-bias will be assessed as follows: i. Method of testing/reporting of APOL1 high-risk variants in kidney transplant recipients and donors. This will be done at outcome level.
ii. Reporting of study: Studies that were reported in different units but similar in outcome and design will be converted based on individual case evaluation. This will be evaluated for individual studies by assessing the unit of reporting of studies, for example, whether mean SD, prevalence with con dence intervals or incidence or proportion are reported. This is done at outcome level.
iii. Heterogeneity will be assessed at the study level using the Q statistics and its p-value, tau 2 and the Higgins I 2 .
iv. Publication bias will be assessed at the study level using the funnel plot (trim and ll method) and test for asymmetry v. Sensitivity analysis will assessed at the study level using include and exclude function in the CMA Software Presentation and Reporting of Results: The study selection process will be summarized in a Prisma ow chart according to the PRISMA 2015 Statement and PRISMA-P Checklist. A table of the search strategy in various databases showing text words, MeSH and entry terms will be presented. List of included studies will be summarized in a table.
Quantitative data such as standardized mean difference and pooled g, standard error and 95 % CI, p values, relative weights assigned to studies and heterogeneity tests will be included in the forest plots. A table of quality scores and risk of bias of each eligible study will be presented. Forest plots to show subgroup analysis will be included. Meta-regression and sensitivity analysis will be shown in gures and tables respectively.

Discussion
The effect size for primary outcome is standardized mean difference in survival time for APOL1 high risk variants in kidney transplants. The changes in kidney functions of donors and recipient pre-and posttransplantation would be examined. The suitability of donors who have APOL1 high risk variants will be explored in relation to graft survival, donors kidney function and moderating effects of sociodemographics and environmental determinants. The discussion will assess the possible value of including APOL1 risk variant status of donors and recipients in Kidney Donor Risk Index. Further discussion will include the effects of moderating and modi able factors in graft survival time. The strength of evidence from this study will be assessed using the NIH Quality assessment for systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Declarations
Ethics and Dissemination: The study will use published data, thus, no ethical approval is required. The nal report of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed scienti c journal and made available to medical experts in the eld of kidney transplantation.
Authors' contributions AMA conceived the project. AMA, RYR, NSO and EN designed the study, AMA, RYR, NSO, AOA,AA, ORI, IJO and EN did PubMed searches, screened and reviewed the articles; EN and AMA performed CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Web of Science database search while AMA, NSO, AOA,AA, ORI and EN screened and reviewed the articles from these databases. Article handpicked and those obtained through contact with experts in the eld were equally screened by AMA, RYR, NSO, AOA, AA, IJO , EN and ORI. All authors read the manuscript and consented for publication.

Funding
The study is funded by the authors.

Support
The study is funded by the authors.
Guarantor of the review: Dr. Emamnuel Nna Informed Consent: Not applicable Consent for publication: All authors consented for the manuscript to be published.

Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interest