Abstract
Optimizing immunosuppressive therapy remains central to improving long-term outcomes after kidney transplantation. Both induction and maintenance therapies are widely used, yet their comparative effectiveness across heterogeneous populations requires further evaluation. To this end, this national retrospective cohort study analyzed 228,855 deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients using the over two-decade data (2000-2024). We employed multivariable Cox proportional hazards (PH) models for clinical inference and four machine learning (ML) survival models: random survival forest (RSF), support vector machine (SVM), penalized Cox regression (CoxNet), and extreme gradient boosting optimized with the Cox partial likelihood (XGBoost-Cox) to assess predictive performance of death-censored graft failure and all-cause patient mortality. Model performance was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and time-dependent area under the curve (tdAUC).
Maintenance regimens with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) demonstrated protective effects for both graft failure (CNI+MMF: hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.74; CNI+MMF+steroids: HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82-0.87) and patient mortality (CNI+MMF: HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.81; CNI+MMF+steroids: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88-0.93). Among induction therapies, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) showed protective associations (HR 0.93 for both outcomes), while interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R) antagonists and Alemtuzumab demonstrated neutral effects. Combined ATG + IL-2R therapy comparatively increased the hazard of graft failure (HR 1.09). Recipient diabetes, dialysis dependence, older age, and higher Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) were strong adverse predictors. Traditional Cox regression achieved robust discrimination (graft failure concordance index: 0.685; patient mortality concordance index: 0.704) comparable to ML survival models.
These findings reinforce CNI and MMF maintenance regimens as foundational to contemporary immunosuppression while demonstrating differential effectiveness across induction strategies. The dual analytical framework, which integrates classical Cox PH modeling with ML survival models, shows that Cox models remain highly competitive for clinical inference while ML approaches offer complementary predictive value to support individualized post-transplant risk stratification.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study used fully de-identified registry data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). As such, it did not involve interaction with human subjects and did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval under U.S. federal regulations (45 CFR 46). The analysis was reviewed by our institution and classified as exempt research. No individual-level identifiable information was accessed. All ethical guidelines for analysis of de-identified data were followed.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
