New crossmatch technique eliminates interference by humanized and chimeric monoclonal antibodies

Antibody Therapeutics as Interfering Agents in Flow Cytometry Crossmatch for Organ Transplantation

Donor-recipient matching is a highly individualized and complex component of solid organ transplantation. Flowcytometry crossmatching (FC-XM) is an integral step in the matching process that is used to detect pre-formed deleterious anti-donor immunoglobulin. Despite high sensitivity in detecting cell-bound immunoglobulin, FC-XM is not able to determine the source or function of immunoglobulins detected. Monoclonal antibody therapeutic agents used in a clinic can interfere with the interpretation of FC-XM. We combined data from the prospectively maintained Antibody Society database and Human Protein Atlas with a comprehensive literature review of PubMed to summarize known FC-XM-interfering antibody therapeutics and identify potential interferers. We identified eight unique FC-XM-interfering antibody therapeutics. Rituximab (anti-CD20) was the most-cited agent. Daratumuab (anti-CD38) was the newest reported agent. We identified 43 unreported antibody therapeutics that may interfere with FC-XM. As antibody therapeutic agents become more common, identifying and mitigating FC-XM interference will likely become an increased focus for transplant centers.

Solid phase-based cross-matching for solid organ transplantation: Currently out-of-stock but urgently required for improved allograft outcome

Transplant recipients who have undergone sensitizing events, such as pregnancy, blood transfusion or previous transplants, frequently develop antibodies directed against the highly polymorphous human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-molecules. These pre-formed, donor-specific antibodies (DSA) present a high risk of causing organ failure or even complete loss of the grafted organ as a consequence of antibody-mediated, hyper-acute or acute allograft rejection. In order to detect DSA, the so-called functional complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity assay (CDC-XM) was established about 50 years ago. Although effective in improving the outcome of solid organ allo-grafting, for the last ten years this assay has been controversially discussed due to its low sensitivity and especially because of its high susceptibility to various artificial factors, which generally do not yield reliable results. As a consequence, novel immunochemical test systems have been developed using ELISA- or bead-based solid phase assays as replacements for the traditional CDC-based assays. Because these assays are independent of single or vital cells, which are frequently not available, they have provided an additional and alternative diagnostic approach compared with the traditional CDC-based and flow-cytometric analyses. Unfortunately, however, the AMS-ELISA (Antibody Monitoring System), which was the first system to become commercially available, was recently discontinued by the manufacturer after seven years of successful use. Alternative procedures, such as the AbCross-ELISA, had to be either considerably modified, or did not yield reliable results, as in the case of the Luminex-based assay termed DSA. We draw the conclusion that due to the unique features and fields of application reviewed here, the implementation of solid phase cross-matching still represents an urgent requirement for any HLA-laboratory's routine tasks.

Patients with immunological diseases or on peritoneal dialysis are prone to false positive flow cytometry crossmatch

Despite implementation of virtual crossmatches, flow cytometry crossmatches (FCXM) are still used by many transplant centers to determine immunological risk before kidney transplantation. To determine if common profiles of patients prone to false positive FCXM exist, we examined the demographics and native diseases of kidney patients tested with autologous FCXM (n = 480). Improvements to FCXM and cell isolation methods significantly reduced the positive rate from 15.1% to 5.3%. Patients with native diseases considered 'immunological' (vasculitis, lupus, IgA nephropathy) had more positive autologous FCXM (OR = 3.36, p = 0.003) vs. patients with all other diseases. Patients who were tested using our updated method (n = 321) still showed that these immunological diseases were a significant predictor for positive autologous FCXM (OR = 4.79, p = 0.006). Interestingly, patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) also had significantly more positive autologous FCXM than patients on hemodialysis or waiting for pre-emptive kidney transplants (OR = 3.27, p = 0.02). These findings were confirmed in patients who had false positive allogeneic FCXM. Twenty of 24 (83.3%) patients with false positive allogeneic FCXM tested with updated method either had immunological diseases originally or were on PD. Our findings are helpful when interpreting an unexpected positive FCXM, especially for transplantation from deceased donors.

Implications of Monoclonal Antibody Therapeutics Use for Clinical Laboratory Testing

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibody therapeutics (MATs) represent a rapidly expanding class of biological drugs used to treat a variety of diseases. The widespread use of MATs increasingly affects clinical laboratory medicine.

CONTENT

This review provides an overview of MATs currently approved for clinical use in the US, starting from basic biology of antibodies to the engineering, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, nomenclature, and production of MATs. Immunogenicity and the production of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) play a major role in loss of therapeutic response and the development of treatment failure to certain MATs. Laboratory-based monitoring for MATs and detection of ADAs represent emerging needs for optimizing the use of MATs to achieve the best outcomes at affordable cost. In addition, the increased use of MATs affects clinical laboratory testing by interference of MATs with clinical laboratory tests across different areas of laboratory medicine, including histocompatibility, blood bank, and monoclonal protein testing.

SUMMARY

The number of MATs is rapidly growing each year to address previously unmet clinical needs. Laboratory monitoring of MATs and detecting ADAs represent expanding areas of laboratory testing. Test-based strategies allow for treatment optimization at the level of the individual patient, thus providing a personalized medicine approach. In addition, clinical laboratories must be aware that the increasing use of MATs affects laboratory testing and be ready to implement methods to eliminate or mitigate interference with clinical tests.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in a Highly Allo-Sensitized Recipient: Confusing Influence of Rituximab on the Lymphocytotoxicity Crossmatch Test. A Case Report

Objective: We report a successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) from donor (husband) to highly allo-sensitized recipient (wife) against donor-adopting sufficient preoperative preparation. Methods: A 47-year-old woman with primary biliary cirrhosis was referred to our hospital as a potential candidate of LDLT. Her husband was willing to donate his hemiliver. As the lymphocytotoxicity crossmatch (LCT-XM) test based on a complement-dependent cytotoxicity and flow panel reactive antibody (PRA) test revealed that the patient had strong donor-specific anti-HLA antibody, the patient received rituximab twice for preoperative desensitization. A total of 5 rounds of plasmapheresis were also performed. Results: Nevertheless, the LCT-XM test 9 days after the administration of rituximab did not turn to negative while flow PRA test was almost negative. Suspecting that residual rituximab in the recipient's serum might interfere with the LCT-XM test because of its potential ability to activate the complement, we retried the test after absorbing rituximab from the serum with immunomagnetic bead. Conclusion: The result: The LCT-XM test turned to negative, suggesting that the desensitization therapy was adequate. A left liver graft was transplanted as planned, and the postoperative course was uneventful. The patient is doing well 12 months after transplantation.

Unexpected Positive Prospective Crossmatches in Organ Transplant

Preformed donor-specific antibodies against human leukocyte antigen can induce antibody-mediated rejection after organ transplant. Hence, future transplant recipients undergo pretransplant screening for preformed antibodies (ie, virtual crossmatch). Subsequently, prospective (analytic) crossmatching is performed using conventional, complement-dependent cytotoxicity assays and/or flow cytometry-based methods. The present article reviews factors that must be considered when unexpected, positive, prospective crossmatches are observed. First, the prozone effect caused by the interference of complement or immunoglobulin M must be abrogated by treating the serum with moderate heat, dilution, hypotonic dialysis, EDTA, or dithiothreitol. Second, the physician must check for the presence of potentially interfering autoantibodies (in a context of autoimmune disease or human immunodeficiency virus infection) or therapeutic antibodies (such as rituximab and antithymocyte globulin). In conclusion, knowledge of each assay's technical characteristics will enable the physician to reliably interpret any discrepancies. The reasons for an unexpected, positive, prospective crossmatch must be elucidated before transplant to ensure efficient organ allocation and optimize patient outcomes.

False Positive B-Cells Crossmatch after Prior Rituximab Exposure of the Kidney Donor

Crossmatching is essential prior to kidney transplantation to confirm compatibility between the donor and the recipient, particularly to prevent acute antibody-mediated rejection. An unexpected positive crossmatch may be obtained in recipients with an autoimmune disease or preexisting antibodies not detected by single-antigen bead array due to complement interference or who have been previously treated by desensitization protocols such as rituximab, antithymocyte globulin, or intravenous immunoglobulins. We report donor and recipient investigations that revealed unexpected positive B-cells crossmatch, probably due to donor cells, as the donor had received rituximab therapy shortly before organ harvesting, in a context of severe idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. We consequently detected unexpected Class II IgG complement-dependent cytotoxicity for all sera tested. Other laboratory investigations failed to elucidate the reasons for this recipient-related positivity.

The Influence of Immunosuppressive Agents on the Risk of De Novo Donor-Specific HLA Antibody Production in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Production of de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) is a major risk factor for acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection and graft loss after all solid organ transplantation. In this article, we review the data available on the risk of individual immunosuppressive agents and their ability to prevent dnDSA production. Induction therapy with rabbit antithymocyte globulin may achieve a short-term decrease in dnDSA production in moderately sensitized patients. Rituximab induction may be beneficial in sensitized patients, and in abrogating rebound antibody response in patients undergoing desensitization or treatment for antibody-mediated rejection. Use of bortezomib for induction therapy in at-risk patients is of interest, but the benefits are unproven. In maintenance regimens, nonadherent and previously sensitized patients are not suitable for aggressive weaning protocols, particularly early calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal without lymphocyte-depleting induction. Early conversion to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor monotherapy has been reported to increase the risk of dnDSA formation, but a combination of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor and reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor does not appear to alter the risk. Early steroid therapy withdrawal in standard-risk patients after induction has no known dnDSA penalty. The available data do not demonstrate a consistent effect of mycophenolic acid on dnDSA production. Risk minimization for dnDSA requires monitoring of adherence, appropriate risk stratification, risk-based immunosuppression intensity, and prospective DSA surveillance.

Desensitization Strategies Pre- and Post-Cardiac Transplantation

OPINION STATEMENT

Panel reactive antibody (PRA) testing has become standard in the evaluation of patients prior to cardiac transplant. Sensitizing events such as blood transfusions, which result in the accumulation of pre-transplant antibodies, should be avoided as clinically feasible. Desensitization therapy might be considered in sensitized patients with cPRA > 50 % although distinct cutoff PRA values for initiating therapy pre-transplant are patient and transplant program dependent. Post-cardiac transplant, quantitative antibodies should also be periodically analyzed, at intervals individualized to the patient. Donor-specific antibodies (DSA) after cardiac transplantation have been shown to be associated with worsened survival. It appears that complement fixing DSA confer the greatest risk for antibody-mediated rejection post-transplant. Desensitization strategies aim to reduce the number of clinically important antibodies prior to and after transplant, both by removal of antibodies and cessation of further production. Current desensitization regimens include pharmacologic, procedural, and surgical modalities, and must be individualized to the patient. Currently, most cardiac transplant programs tailor the post-transplant immunosuppressive regimen based on clinical factors and immunologic assays and may include the use of cytolytic induction and/or intravenous immune gammaglobulin in higher risk patients.

ELISA-Based Crossmatching Allowing the Detection of Emerging Donor-Specific Anti-HLA Antibodies through the Use of Stored Donors' Cell Lysates

About forty years ago the complement-dependent crossmatch assay (CDC-CM) was developed as standard procedure in order to select recipients without donor-specific antibodies directed against human leukocyte antigens of their given donors since the negative outcome of pretransplant crossmatching represents one of the most important requirements for a successful kidney graft survival. However, as a functional assay the CDC-CM strongly depends on the availability of donors' isolated lymphocytes and in particular on their vitality highly limiting its applicability for recipients treated with special drugs and therapeutic antibodies or suffering from underlying autoimmune diseases. In the great majority of these cases ELISA-based crossmatching has been demonstrated to be an adequate alternative procedure nevertheless leading to valid results. With these case reports we show for the first time that ELISA-based crossmatching is suitable to demonstrate the upcoming donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies as a consequence of allografting using deep-frozen deceased donor's material such as blood or spleen detergent lysate. Thus, this ELISA-based procedure first provides the option to routinely perform crossmatching using stored material of deceased donors in order to substitute or at least to complement virtual crossmatching, that is, the comparison of the recipients' anti-HLA antibody specificities with the donors' historically identified HLA types.

Interference of therapeutic antibodies used in desensitization protocols on lymphocytotoxicity crossmatch results

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic antibodies used to desensitize patients awaiting a human leukocyte antigen (HLA) or ABO-mismatched graft are suspected to interfere with the lymphocytotoxicity crossmatch (LCT-XM) test when they are present in the tested sera because of their potential ability to activate or inhibit the complement.

METHODS

The most frequent therapeutic antibodies (Abs) used in desensitization protocols (intravenous immunoglobulins, rituximab, basiliximab, eculizumab, antithymocyte globulin) were added to a negative- or a positive-control serum at various concentrations, and tested in vitro in a LCT-XM test.

RESULTS

Rituximab turned the LCT-XM positive on B cells at 0.2 μg/mL and antithymocyte globulin turned the LCT-XM positive with T and B cells at 20 μg/mL and 200 μg/mL, respectively. Treatment with dithiothreitol sera, supplemented with rituximab (0.2 and 2 μg/mL) and antithymocyte globulins (20 and 200 μg/mL), partially or totally reduced this positive interference. Intravenous immunoglobulin, eculizumab, and basiliximab did not trigger any interference with the negative control serum. In a positive LCT-XM, eculizumab did not annihilate activation of the rabbit complement. Intravenous immunoglobulins (25 g/L) could partially or totally reduced lysis score of positive crossmatch with weak lysis scores.

CONCLUSION

If eculizumab within the serum did not annihilate rabbit complement activation and basiliximab did not interfere with the crossmatch reaction, treatments based on rituximab, antithymocyte globulin and intravenous immunoglobulins need to be taken into account when interpreting a positive or negative crossmatch test.

Solid phase-based cross-matching as solution for kidney allograft recipients pretreated with therapeutic antibodies

In order to select recipients without donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies, the complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-CM) was established as the standard procedure about 40 years ago. However, the interpretability of this functional assay strongly depends on the vitality of isolated donors' lymphocytes. Since the application of therapeutic antibodies for the immunosuppressive regimen falsifies the outcome of the CDC-crossmatch as a result of these antibodies' complement-activating capacity in the recipients' sera, we looked for an alternative methodical approach. We here present 27 examples of AB0 blood group-incompatible living kidney allograft recipients who, due to their treatment with the humanized chimeric monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody Rituximab, did not present valid outcomes of CDC-based pretransplant cross-matching. Additionally, four cases of posttransplant cross-matching after living kidney allografting and consequent treatment with the therapeutic anti-CD25 antibody Basiliximab (Simulect) due to acute biopsy-proven rejection episodes are presented and compared regarding CDC- and ELISA-based crossmatch outcomes. In all cases, it became evident that the classical CDC-based crossmatch was completely unfeasible for the detection of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies, whereas ELISA-based cross-matching not requiring vital cells was not artificially affected. We conclude that ELISA-based cross-matching is a valuable tool to methodically circumvent false positive CDC-based crossmatch results in the presence of therapeutically applied antibodies.

The interference of monoclonal antibodies with laboratory diagnosis: clinical and diagnostic implications

Diagnostic test interference is due to the presence of material that falsely changes an analytic test result. The development of monoclonal antibodies is discussed with focus on their extensive use as both therapeutic and diagnostic agents. In this review the interference of monoclonal antibodies with laboratory test methods and the potential impact on clinical care is addressed. Recognition of the types of interference, endogenous and exogenous, and the varied mechanisms by which monoclonal antibodies may cause interference are discussed in this report. Review of the literature identifies cases which exemplify the issues facing laboratorians and clinicians and describe the impact on patients. Approaches to reducing and eliminating sources of interference are also addressed. Education of ordering clinicians concerning the possibility of interference in at-risk patients is key in limiting the impact on care. Laboratorians and medical practitioners should be cognizant of the risk of interference to avoid incorrect management of patients.

Sensitive solid-phase detection of donor-specific antibodies as an aid highly relevant to improving allograft outcomes

Transplant recipients who have had sensitizing events such as pregnancies, blood transfusions and previous transplants often develop antibodies directed against human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-molecules of the donor tissue. These pre-formed donor-specific antibodies (DSA) represent a high risk of organ failure as a consequence of antibody-mediated hyper-acute or acute allograft rejection. As a first assay to detect DSA, the complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity assay (CDC) was established more than 40 years ago. However, this assay is characterized by several drawbacks such as a low sensitivity and a high susceptibility to various artificial factors generally not leading to valid and reliable outcomes under several circumstances that are reviewed in this article. Furthermore, only those antibodies that exert complement-fixing activity are detected. As a consequence, novel procedures that act independently of the complement system and that do not represent functional assays were generated in the format of solid phase assays (SPAs) (bead- or ELISA-based). In this article, we review the pros and cons of these sensitive SPA in comparison with the detection of DSA through the use of the traditional methods such as CDC and flow cytometric analyses. Potential drawbacks of the alternative methodological approaches comprising high background reactivity, susceptibility to environmental factors and the possible influence of subjective operators' errors concerning the interpretation of the results are summarized and critically discussed for each method. We provide a forecast on the future role of SPAs reliably excluding highly deleterious DSA, thus leading to an improved graft survival.

Artificially Positive Crossmatches Not Leading to the Refusal of Kidney Donations due to the Usage of Adequate Diagnostic Tools

Allografting patients with human leukocyte antigens (HLA) which are recognized by preformed antibodies constitutes the main cause for hyper-acute or acute rejections. In order to select recipients without these donor-specific antibodies, the complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-CM) assay was developed as a standard procedure about forty years ago. The negative outcome of pretransplant crossmatching represents the most important requirement for a successful kidney graft survival. The artificially positive outcomes of CDC-based crossmatches due to the underlying disease Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), however, may lead to the unjustified refusal of adequate kidney grafts. Two prospective female recipients destined for a living as well as for a cadaver kidney donation, respectively, exhibited positive CDC-based crossmatch outcomes although for both patients no historical immunizing events were known. Furthermore, solid phase-based screening or antibody differentiation analyses never led to positive results. Immediate reruns of the CDC-based crossmatch assays using the alternative antibody monitoring system (AMS-)crossmatch ELISA resulted in unequivocally negative outcomes. Consequently both transplantations were performed without any immunological complications for the hitherto follow-up time of 25 and 28 months, respectively. We here show two case reports demonstrating an alternative methodical approach to circumvent CDC-based artefacts and point to the urgent need to substitute the CDC-based crossmatch procedure at least for special groups of patients.

An integrative approach for the transplantation of high-risk sensitized patients

BACKGROUND

Sensitized patients have a lower chance of receiving a crossmatch-negative kidney and, if transplanted, are at risk of antibody-mediated allograft rejection.

METHODS

For safe and timely transplantation of sensitized patients at our center, we developed an integrative algorithm that includes identification of high-risk patients, good human leukocyte antigen match, inclusion in the Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch Program when applicable, apheresis, anti-CD20 therapy, posttransplant antibody monitoring, and protocol biopsies. Thirty-four high-risk recipients of a deceased donor kidney (DDK: n=28) or living donor kidney (LDK: n=6) were transplanted using this algorithm.

RESULTS

One-year graft survival, death-censored graft survival, and patient survival rates in DDK recipients were 92.4%, 96.4%, and 95.8%, respectively. No graft loss or patient death was observed in the six LDK patients. Median serum creatinine at 1 year in DDK and LDK recipients was 1.2 and 1.4 mg/dL, respectively. Eleven DDK and three LDK patients experienced at least one biopsy-proven acute rejection episode, mostly showing borderline changes. Antibody-mediated rejection without graft loss was diagnosed in two DDK and one LDK patients. Delayed graft function was observed in 13 DDK and 1 LDK patients. Infectious complications were infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe an algorithm for the categorization and treatment of presensitized high-risk patients. This protocol provides effective prevention of antibody-mediated rejection and is associated with a low rate of side effects and good graft outcome.

Antibody-mediated rejection following transplantation from an HLA-identical sibling

Putative antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in HLA-identical sibling transplantation has rarely been reported and occurred before routine calcineurin inhibitor use. A 29-year-old male developed allograft dysfunction following an HLA-identical renal transplant from his sibling. A pretransplant panel-reactive antibody (PRA) was elevated, pre-transplant crossmatch was negative and no donor-specific antibody (DSA) was identified. Induction with alemtuzumab was followed by maintenance immunosuppression with corticosteroids, tacrolimus and mycophenolate. A biopsy for allograft dysfunction suggested AMR, but DSA could not be detected. Treatment for rejection was transiently successful. Undetectable minor histocompatibility antibodies may have contributed.

Successful renal transplantation with desensitization in highly sensitized patients: a single center experience

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and/or plasmapheresis (PP) are effective in preventing antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) of kidney allografts, but AMR is still a problem. This study reports our experience in living donor renal transplantation in highly sensitized patients. Ten patients with positive crossmatch tests or high levels of panel-reactive antibody (PRA) were included. Eight patients were desensitized with pretransplant PP and low dose IVIG, and two were additionally treated with rituximab. Allograft function, number of acute rejection (AR) episodes, protocol biopsy findings, and the presence of donor-specific antibody (DSA) were evaluated. With PP/IVIG, six out of eight patients showed good graft function without AR episodes. Protocol biopsies revealed no evidence of tissue injury or C4d deposits. Of two patients with AR, one was successfully treated with PP/IVIG, but the other lost graft function due to de novo production of DSA. Thereafter, rituximab was added to PP/IVIG in two cases. Rituximab gradually decreased PRA levels and the percentage of peripheral CD20+ cells. DSA was undetectable and protocol biopsy showed no C4d deposits. The graft function was stable and there were no AR episodes. Conclusively, desensitization using PP/IVIG with or without rituximab increases the likelihood of successful living donor renal transplantation in sensitized recipients.

Drug insight: rituximab in renal disease and transplantation

Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the CD20 molecule found on pre-B cells and mature B cells (but not on plasma cells), was introduced in the late 1990s for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Recently, this antibody has been used to treat autoimmune diseases, especially those associated with a prominent humoral component and with potentially pathogenic autoantibodies. Small cohort studies have indicated that rituximab could have an important role in the management of these disorders. Rituximab has also been utilized in the transplant setting, to diminish levels of alloreactive antibodies in highly sensitized patients, to manage ABO-incompatible transplants, and to treat rejection associated with B cells and antibodies. The exact mechanism by which rituximab exerts its effects in autoimmunity and transplantation remains unclear, as specific autoantibody or alloantibody levels often seem not to diminish in parallel with clinical improvement. A role for rituximab in depleting B cells and compromising their antigen-presenting function seems likely; rituximab might also inhibit T-cell activation. A synergistic effect has been noted in vitro following administration of corticosteroids to B-cell lines, with accentuation of B-cell cytotoxicity; this observation might be relevant to certain studies, as some regimens have utilized both agents simultaneously. This article reviews the current use of rituximab in renal disease and transplantation, and includes discussion of the drug's potential role in novel therapeutic protocols.

New therapies for systemic lupus erythematosus: cellular targets

Antilymphocyte antibodies have been widely used in oncology and transplantation and are now being tested in autoimmune diseases. For systemic lupus erythematosus, anti-B-cell antibodies are furthest along in development. This article discusses the B-cell abnormalities found in systemic lupus erythematosus and the clinical and immunologic effects of anti-B-cell therapies.

Rituximab, an anti-cd20 monoclonal antibody: history and mechanism of action

Rituximab, chimeric anti-human CD20, is approved for treatment of B-cell lymphoma in adults. It is being used experimentally in other various immune-related diseases such as immune thrombocytopenic purpura, systemic lupus erythematosus, myasthenia gravis and rheumatoid arthritis. In transplant recipients, it is used for treatment of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, to anecdotally reduce pre-formed anti-HLA and anti-ABO antibodies and for the prevention and treatment of acute rejection. This article primarily reviews the science behind rituximab: its history, pharmacokinetics and potential mechanism of action. A need for controlled clinical trials is clearly indicated before the widespread use of this drug in transplant.

Presensitization: the problem and its management

Much attention has been placed recently on transplantation in highly HLA-sensitized patients. In attempts to remove these antibodies and enable successful transplantation, several novel approaches have been developed. These include intravenous Ig (IVIg), mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus, alemtuzumab, protein A immunoabsorption, and rituximab. IVIg has emerged as a very effective agent when used alone in high dose or when used in low dose and combined with plasmapheresis. Although alemtuzumab has been used to eliminated B cells, it fails to prevent antibody-mediated rejection and therefore probably is not suitable for desensitization. Rituximab, a B cell-specific antibody, seems to be safe and to have some efficacy as a sole agent in elimination of alloantibodies but most likely will require combination therapy with IVIg or other agents. Newer agents, such as humanized anti-CD20, are being developed. Despite the great interest in the problem of allosensitization, with one notable exception, there is a major deficiency in controlled clinical trials, the conduct of which should be a focus for the near future.