Luminex screening first vs. direct single antigen bead assays: Different strategies for HLA antibody monitoring after kidney transplantation

Alloimmune risk assessment for antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplantation: A practical proposal

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. Although an improvement in graft survival has been observed in the last decades with the use of different immunosuppressive drugs, this is still limited in time with antibody-mediated rejection being a main cause of graft-loss. Immune monitoring and risk assessment of antibody-mediated rejection before and after kidney transplantation with useful biomarkers is key to tailoring treatments to achieve the best outcomes. Here, we provide a review of the rationale and several accessible tools for immune monitoring, from the most classic to the modern ones. Finally, we end up discussing a practical proposal for alloimmune risk assessment in kidney transplantation, including histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA) and non-HLA antibodies, HLA molecular mismatch analysis and characterization of peripheral blood immune cells.

Determination of unacceptable HLA antigen mismatches in kidney transplant recipients

With the introduction of the virtual allocation crossmatch in the Eurotransplant (ET) region in 2023, the determination of unacceptable antigen mismatches (UAM) in kidney transplant recipients is of utmost importance for histocompatibility laboratories and transplant centers. Therefore, a joined working group of members from the German Society for Immunogenetics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Immungenetik, DGI) and the German Transplantation Society (Deutsche Transplantationsgesellschaft, DTG) revised and updated the previous recommendations from 2015 in light of recently published evidence. Like in the previous version, a wide range of topics is covered from technical issues to clinical risk factors. This review summarizes the evidence about the prognostic value of contemporary methods for HLA antibody detection and identification, as well as the impact of UAM on waiting time, on which these recommendations are based. As no clear criteria could be determined to differentiate potentially harmful from harmless HLA antibodies, the general recommendation is to assign all HLA against which plausible antibodies are found as UAM. There is, however, a need for individualized solutions for highly immunized patients. These revised recommendations provide a list of aspects that need to be considered when assigning UAM to enable a fair and comprehensible procedure and to harmonize risk stratification prior to kidney transplantation between transplant centers. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Improved detection of donor-specific HLA-class II antibody in kidney transplant recipients by modified immunocomplex capture fluorescence analysis

Immunocomplex capture fluorescence analysis (ICFA) which basic principle is same as Luminex crossmatch (LXM), could detect donor-specific HLA antibody (DSA). The advantages of ICFA are (i) detection of DSA and (ii) no requirement of viable cells over the flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM). However, FCXM has been widely used because of its higher sensitivity than ICFA, in particular HLA-class II antibody detection. In this study the accuracy of DSA detection against HLA-class II was investigated by modifying the original method of ICFA. Increment of the sensitivity was found when purified peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were used instead of whole blood. An ICFA-PBMC in addition to FCXM-T/B was conducted for 118 patients before kidney transplantation and 13 patients with de novo DSA against HLA-class II after transplantation. Significantly positive correlation was observed between the values of ICFA-PBMC and DSA mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) targeting class II (p < 0.0001). When the cutoff level of 1.4 was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the average DSA MFI was found to be significantly higher in the ICFA-PBMC (class II) positive group comparing to that in the negative group (12,217 vs 3885, p = 0.0027). ICFA-PBMC and optimized cutoff level could provide valid information in cases of suspected DSA.