Comparing the efficacy of three techniques to reduce isoagglutinin titers in AB0 incompatible kidney transplant recipients

Comparative Analysis of AB vs. ABO-specific Plasma for Desensitization in Blood Group O Recipients: An In Vitro Study

Neutralizing capacity measurement (NCM) of soluble ABH substances (SAS) in plasma was assessed to guide the selection of the appropriate ABO group of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) for plasma exchange (PE) in blood group O recipients with ABO-incompatible transplantations. Neutralizing capacity was assessed by measuring anti-A and/or anti-B titers in samples comprising one unit of O FFP and 10 O EDTA plasma samples and subtracting the binary logarithm of the titer in each group with a saline dilution. Ten EDTA plasma samples with Lewis b (Leb) antigen positivity and 10 sets of pooled FFP from each blood group were used as diluents. In O FFP, the NCM values (mean±SD) were 3.4±0.52 (2.6±0.52) and 2.6±0.52 (1.5±0.3) in B and AB for IgM (total antibody) anti-B (both P<0.001), and in the 10 O EDTA plasma samples, they were 3.9±0.88 (3.1±0.88) and 3.2±0.79 (2.4±0.97) for IgM (P=0.0013) and total anti-B (P=0.025), respectively. In vitro analysis revealed that B FFP is more effective than AB FFP in reducing IgM and total anti-B antibody titers in O recipients, regardless of Leb antigen positivity.

Performance, clinical effectiveness, and safety of immunoadsorption in a wide range of indications

Immunoadsorption is well known to selectively remove immunoglobulins and immune complexes from plasma and is applied in a variety of autoimmune diseases and for desensitization before, or at acute rejection after organ transplantation. Performance, safety, and clinical effectiveness of immunoadsorption were the aim of this study. This prospective, noninterventional, multicentre cohort study included patients treated with immunoadsorption (Immunosorba or GLOBAFFIN adsorbers) for any indication. Clinical effectiveness was assessed after termination of the patient's individual treatment schedule. Eighty‐one patients were included, 69 were treated with Immunosorba, 11 with GLOBAFFIN, one patient with both adsorbers. A majority of patients was treated for neurological indications, dilated cardiomyopathy, and before or after kidney or heart transplantation. Mean IgG reduction from pre‐ to post‐treatment was 69.9% ± 11.5% for Immunosorba and 74.1% ± 5.0% for GLOBAFFIN, respectively. The overall IgG reduction over a complete treatment block was 68%–93% with Immunosorba and 62%–90% with GLOBAFFIN depending on the duration of the overall treatment. After termination of the immunoadsorption therapy, an improvement of clinical status was observed in 63.0%, stabilization of symptoms in 29.6%, and a deterioration in 4.9% of patients. Changes in fibrinogen, thrombocytes, and albumin were mostly classified as noncritical. Overall, the treatments were well tolerated. Immunoadsorption in routine clinical practice with both GLOBAFFIN and Immunosorba has been safely performed, was well tolerated by patients, and effective in lowering immunoglobulins with an improvement or maintenance of clinical status, thus represents an additional therapeutic option for therapy refractory immune disorders.

Isoagglutinin removal by plasma centrifugation or filtration (single or double): A prospective study in a single center

INTRODUCTION

ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation, a well-established procedure, has good long-term results provided pretransplant desensitization that includes immunosuppression and apheresis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare, within the first pretransplant apheresis session given to 29 ABOi kidney-transplant candidates, the effect on isoagglutinin titers (both IgG and IgM isotypes) of three modalities: centrifugation therapeutic plasmapheresis (cTP; n = 10), filtration TP (fTP; n = 9), and double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP; n = 10).

RESULTS

The three groups were comparable according to baseline demographics. Treated plasma volumes were similar across the three groups, that is, 4111 ± 403 mL (cTP), 3861 ± 282 mL (fTP), and 3699 ± 820 mL (DFPP): that is, 54 ± 7, 53 ± 7, and 53 ± 10 mL/kg respectively. One session of centrifugation or filtration TP reduced IgG anti-A/anti-B isoagglutinin titer by ~4, whereas one DFPP session reduced it by ~2. One session of cTP reduced IgM anti-A isoagglutinin titer by a little less than 4, whereas fTP and DFPP sessions reduced it by ~3. There were no statistical differences across the three groups regarding isoagglutinin rebound (IgG and IgM). However, isoagglutinin IgG rebound was >4 dilutions for anti-B titers compared with ~2 dilutions for anti-A titers. The median decreases in IgG level were -3.9 g/L (DFPP), -5.9 g/L (cTP), and - 6.06 g/L (fTP) (p = ns). Median fibrinogen depletions were ~ 60% (fTP), 64% (DFPP), and 76% (cTP).

CONCLUSIONS

Isoagglutinin depletions within the first apheresis session were similar across cTP, fTP, and DFPP: this was numerically lower for DFPP.

Therapeutic Immunoadsorption and Conventional Plasma Exchange in ABO-incompatible Renal Transplant: An Exculpatory Evidence

Aim

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of immunoadsorption (IA) with conventional therapeutic plasma-exchange (cTPE) in ABO-incompatible (ABOi) renal transplant.

Methods

Data of patients from July 2015 to June 2017 (category-I, number of patients (N) = 11; IA±cTPE) on the average length of stay (ALOS), number of cTPE/IA, antibody-titers (AT), creatinine, patient and graft survival at one year were compared retrospectively with patients in period from February 2012 to June 2015 (category-II, N = 29; cTPE only). AT of patients not decreasing to less than one fold after two cTPE were shifted for IA. For patients undergoing IA, real-time AT was done and IA stopped after target titer (TT <1:8) was achieved. Post-transplant cTPE was done if, titers rebounded to ≥1:8. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) was given after every cTPE/IA. Cost comparisons were made.

Results

In category-I, seven patients (63.63%) were shifted to IA from cTPE. The mean cTPE procedures in category I and II are 3.5 ± 2.4 and 4.8 ± 2.5, respectively (p = 0.206). The mean IA procedures in category-I are 1.6 ± 0.5. The number of patients requiring post-operative TPE was less in category-I than category-II, i.e., N = 5, 45.5% vs N = 20, 69%, respectively (p = 0.171). The expense of IA in category-I vs cTPE in category-II was statistically not significant (p = 0.422) but had significant lesser ALOS (p = 0.044). Expenses, when a patient undergoes both cTPE and IA (category-I), are significantly higher to category-II (p = 0.003). The two groups were comparable in AT, creatinine value, graft and patient survival rates at one year.

Conclusion

Contrary to the general judgment of IA being expensive than cTPE, this study shows equivalent expenditures with comparable therapeutic outcomes.