Implementation of a National Priority Allocation System for Hypersensitized Patients in Spain, Based on Virtual Crossmatch: Initial Results

Low-risk delisting strategy in highly sensitized patients without donor offers included in exchange donation programs. One single-center experience

Donor exchange programs were designed to allocate organs for highly sensitized (HS) patients. The allocation algorithm differs slightly among countries and includes different strategies to improve access to transplants in HS patients. However, many HS patients with a calculated panel reactive of antibodies (cPRA) of 100 % remain on the waiting list for a long time. Some allocation algorithms assume immunological risk, including Imlifidase treatment, to increase the chance of transplantation in very HS patients. Here, we describe our unicenter experience of low-risk delisting strategy in 15 HS patients included in the Spanish donor exchange program without donor offers. After delisting, 7 out of 15 HS patients reduced the cPRA below 99.95 % and impacted the reduction of time on the waiting list (p = 0.01), where 5 out of 7 achieved transplantation. Within those HS that remained above 99.95 %, 1 out of 8 was transplanted. All the HS were transplanted with delisted DSA, and only one with DSA level rebounded early after transplantation. All HS transplanted after delisting maintain graft function. The transplant immunology laboratories are challenged to search intermediate risk assessment methods for delisting high HS patients.

Improving the Access of Highly Sensitized Patients to Kidney Transplantation From Deceased Donors: The Spanish PATHI Program With Allocation Based on the Virtual Crossmatch

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the Spanish National Transplant Organization developed a prioritization system (Program for Access to Transplantation for Highly Sensitized Patients [PATHI]) to increase transplant options for patients with calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRAs) ≥98%, based on virtual crossmatch. We describe the experience with the implementation of PATHI and assess its efficacy.

METHODS

PATHI registry was used to collect characteristics of donors and patients between June 15, 2015, and March 1, 2018. One-year graft and patient survival and acute rejection were also measured. A Cox model was used to identify factors related to patient death and graft loss and logistical regression for those associated with rejection.

RESULTS

One thousand eighty-nine patients were included, and 272 (25%) were transplanted. Transplant rate by cPRA was 54.9%, 40.5%, and 12.8% in patients with cPRA98%, cPRA99%, and cPRA100%, respectively. One-year patient survival was 92.5%. Recipient age ≥60, time under dialysis >7 y, and delayed graft function were mortality risk factors. One-year graft survival was 88.7%. The factor related to graft loss was delayed graft function. The rejection rate was 22%. Factors related to rejection were sex, older recipients, and posttransplant donor-specific antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

A prioritization approach increases transplant options for highly sensitized patients with appropriate short-term postransplant outcomes. Along with other programs, PATHI may inspire other countries to adopt strategies to meet transplant needs of these patients.

Equity matrix for kidney transplant allocation

There is a general agreement that the distribution of kidneys for transplantation should balance utility criteria with justice. Moreover, a kidney allocation system must be based on transparent policies and seen as an ongoing process. This study aims to present an allocation system grounded on an equity matrix that balances the criteria of utility and justice. Synthetic data for a waiting list with 2000 transplant candidates and a pool of 280 donors were generated. A color priority system, the Eurotransplant (ET) kidney allocation system, and the proposed Equity Matrix (EQM) allocation system were compared after 1000 iterations of kidney allocations. Distributions of variables like the age difference, Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA) mismatches (mmHLA), recipients' time on dialysis, cPRA, and a transplant score obtained by different allocation models were compared graphically and with Cohen's d effect size. For the analyzed variables, when we compare only the selected recipients from ET with the selected recipients from the EQM neutral model, we can conclude that the former model selects more hypersensitized recipients, a higher number of 65+ years' old recipients with 65+ years' old donors and higher number of recipients with 0 mmHLA. While recipients from EQM neutral are slightly older, have a lower age difference with their donors, have a lower number of mmHLA, are less likely to have 6 mmHLA with their donors, and have more time on dialysis. The proposed EQM model attempts to provide a simple, transparent, and equitable response to a complex question with results that outperform established practices.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Low Incidence of Acute Antibody-Mediated Rejection after HLA Desensitization in Living Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients

Desensitization allows the performance of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible transplants. However, the incidence of acute rejection (AR) is high. This study aims to analyze the incidence of AR after transplantation with HLA-incompatible living donors in patients who underwent desensitization. Patients were immunosuppressed with tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid derivatives, and steroids after being desensitized with rituximab, plasma exchange, and/or immunoadsorption with specific cytomegalovirus immunoglobulins. A negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity or flow cytometry crossmatch and a donor-specific antibody titer < 1000 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) were used to determine desensitization efficacy. A total of 36 patients underwent desensitization, and 27 (75%) were transplanted. After a follow-up of 58 ± 58 months (Min−Max: 0.13−169.5), five episodes of AR occurred: two antibody-mediated and three T-cell-mediated. No differences were found in baseline calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA), class I or II MFI, number of antibodies, or Relative Intensity Scale (RIS) between AR and non-AR patients. Patients with antibody-mediated AR had higher cPRA (NS), MFI class I (p = 0.07) and class II (p = 0.006), and RIS (p = 0.01). The two patients with antibody-mediated AR and one patient with T-cell-mediated AR lost their grafts. In conclusion, the incidence of acute antibody-mediated rejection after desensitization was 7.4%, which occurred early post-transplantation in patients with high MFI and was associated with early graft loss.

Non-HLA Antibodies and Their Role in Highly Sensitized Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of non-HLA antibody is gaining special attention in solid-organ transplantation and in highly sensitized (HS) patients because of its potential involvement in graft loss (GL) and/or antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). The identification of non-HLA antibodies while listed may provide deeper information about the increased immunologic risk prior to transplant. We aimed to identify non-HLA antibodies pretransplant that could involve GL in HS patients.

METHODS

Nineteen pretransplant samples from HS patients who underwent transplant at the Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital were studied for both HLA antibodies and a panel of 39 non-HLA antigens analyzed based on Luminex platform.

RESULTS

Eleven patient (57.9%) maintained the graft (KT group), whereas 8 (42.1%) had a GL within a median of 30 days. The median fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the 39 non-HLA antigens were compared within the groups, obtaining a statistically significant differences in protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type N (P < .04) with a MFI mean of 1408 vs 4931 for KT and GL groups, respectively. However, no significant differences were observed in non-HLA MFI between ABMR and non-ABMR KT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of non-HLA antibodies in HS is high. The levels of anti-protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type N before transplant could indicate a potential risk of GL, although longitudinal studies with large number of cases are needed to define anti-non-HLA profiles of risk of ABMR.

Graft survival differences in kidney transplants related to recipient sex and age

Background

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in studying differences in recipient sex in renal disease treatment, access to renal replacement therapy, and subsequent outcomes. Our aim was to find out whether there are differences in outcomes after renal transplantation between female and male kidney transplant recipients in our series, particularly in adults under 60 years of age during long-term follow-up.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of our kidney transplant series (n = 1,101) to compare graft survival depending on the sex of the recipient in the entire series and patients < 60 years of age (n = 687) during long-term follow-up.

Results

We observed no association between recipient sex and graft survival throughout the series, regardless of recipient sex. However, adult female recipients under 60 years of age had lower graft survival than male recipients (p = 0.040). Pre-transplant sensitization (HR 2.438, p = 0.002) and donor age (HR: 1.021, p = 0.017) were the independent variables associated with graft failure.

Conclusion

Female recipients younger than 60 years of age had lower graft survival than male recipients, although there were no gender differences in graft or patient survival in the overall study population. Recipient sex per se was not related to graft failure, but the greater immunological risk in women and more frequent use of expanded criteria donors in female recipients under 60 years of age were the main factors related to their poorer graft survival. Further studies and new strategies are needed to identify these differences and develop the best approach to address them.

European Guideline for the Management of Kidney Transplant Patients With HLA Antibodies: By the European Society for Organ Transplantation Working Group

This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies. Sensitization should be defined using a virtual parameter such as calculated Reaction Frequency (cRF), which assesses HLA antibodies derived from the actual organ donor population. Highly sensitized patients should be prioritized in kidney allocation schemes and linking allocation schemes may increase opportunities. The use of the ENGAGE 5 ((Bestard et al., Transpl Int, 2021, 34: 1005–1018) system and online calculators for assessing risk is recommended. The Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program should be extended. If strategies for finding a compatible kidney are very unlikely to yield a transplant, desensitization may be considered and should be performed with plasma exchange or immunoadsorption, supplemented with IViG and/or anti-CD20 antibody. Newer therapies, such as imlifidase, may offer alternatives. Few studies compare HLA incompatible transplantation with remaining on the waiting list, and comparisons of morbidity or quality of life do not exist. Kidney paired exchange programs (KEP) should be more widely used and should include unspecified and deceased donors, as well as compatible living donor pairs. The use of a KEP is preferred to desensitization, but highly sensitized patients should not be left on a KEP list indefinitely if the option of a direct incompatible transplant exists.

BSHI/BTS guidance on crossmatching before deceased donor kidney transplantation

All UK H&I laboratories and transplant units operate under a single national kidney offering policy, but there have been variations in approach regarding when to undertake the pre‐transplant crossmatch test. In order to minimize cold ischaemia times for deceased donor kidney transplantation we sought to find ways to be able to report a crossmatch result as early as possible in the donation process. A panel of experts in transplant surgery, nephrology, specialist nursing in organ donation and H&I (all relevant UK laboratories represented) assessed evidence and opinion concerning five factors that relate to the effectiveness of the crossmatch process, as follows: when the result should be ready for reporting; what level of donor HLA typing is needed; crossmatch sample type and availability; fairness and equity; risks and patient safety. Guidelines aimed at improving practice based on these issues are presented, and we expect that following these will allow H&I laboratories to contribute to reducing CIT in deceased donor kidney transplantation.

Disparity in the access to kidney transplantation for sensitized patients in the state of Sao Paulo-Brazil

Highly sensitized (HS) patients accumulate on deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) waitlists worldwide due to matching difficulty and inequity of allocation policies. Current situation of HS patients on KT waitlist in Brazil has not been published. All patients enrolled on the KT waitlist of the State of São Paulo from 2002 to 2017 were retrospectively assessed. Patients were divided into eight groups according to their degree of sensitization, PRA of 0%, >0-40%, >40-80%, >80-85%, >85-90%, >90-95%, >95-98% and > 98%. Cumulative incidence curves for transplantation or mortality/removal from waitlist were estimated by competing risk. Among 50,249 waitlisted candidates, 1247 prioritized, 2467 with age < 18 or > 75 years and 4152 submitted to living-donor KT were excluded from the analysis, remaining 42,383 patients. There were 29,664(70%) PRA 0%, 5611(13.2%) PRA > 0-40%, 3442(8.2%) PRA > 40-80%, 507(1.2%) PRA > 80-85%, 564(1.3%) PRA > 85-90%, 825(1.9%) PRA >90-95%, 859(2%) PRA > 95-98% and 911(2.2%) PRA > 98%. There was a progressive increase in the need of prioritization, waiting time for KT or on waitlist and time on dialysis as PRA increased (p < 0.001). Probability of DDKT clearly increased as PRA decreased so that PRA 0% candidates were much more likely to be transplanted compared to PRA > 98% patients(HR:13.02, p < 0.001). Waiting list mortality/removal was higher among PRA > 0-40%(HR1.05,p = 0.03), PRA > 90-95%(HR:1.10,p = 0.05), PRA > 95-98%(HR:1.26,p < 0.001) and PRA > 98%(HR:1.09,p = 0.05) patients compared to PRA zero candidates. HS patients in Sao Paulo-Brazil required greater prioritization due to lack of venous access, longer dialysis and waitlist times, lower probability of DDKT and higher rates of waitlist mortality/removal. We confirmed the disparity of access to KT among HS patients in Sao Paulo-Brazil, indicating the need of new strategies that optimize transplantation for this subcategory of patients.

Eplet-based virtual PRA increases transplant probability in highly-sensitized patients

BACKGROUND

The reduced access of highly-sensitized (HS) patients to kidney transplantation (KTx) is one of the major challenges for transplant community. Therefore, the aim of our study was to estimate the impact of three different vPRA calculations, assessed traditionally and using eplet-based analysis, in donor offers.

METHODS

At 01-01-2020, 157 HS patients are waitlisted for deceased donor KTx and were included in this study. Total vPRA (vPRAt) was calculated considering all patient allosensitization history, using 1 k MFI cut-off. Current vPRA (vPRAc) refers only to the last year SAB assays, using 1 k MFI cut-off. For eplet vPRA (vPRAe) every SAB assay was analyzed by HLAMatchmaker and HLAfusion software. Matching runs have been performed taking vPRA calculation as unacceptable antigens (UAs).

RESULTS

All patients had at least one previous sensitizing event and patients with 100% vPRA were predominantly candidates for retransplantation (P < 0.001), had higher PRA-CDC (P < 0.001), and longer dialysis vintage waiting time (P < 0.001). Inter-group movement analysis between vPRA measures showed that 70 (45%), 124 (79%) and 80 (51%) patients were reclassified to a lower group when considering vPRAt to vPRAc, vPRAt to vPRAe and vPRAc to vPRAe, respectively. The median percentage of change in estimated number of match runs needed for 95% probability of finding an acceptable donor was significantly more pronounced by increasing vPRAt intervals, when considering the reclassification from vPRAt to vPRAe (P < 0.001) or vPRAc to vPRAe (P = 0.045), while from vPRAt to vPRAc it was not (P = 0.899).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that the use of total or current vPRA calculations are impairing HS patients, by decreasing transplant probability, leading to dramatically longer waiting times, when compared to eplet based vPRA.

Organ donation and transplantation: a multi-stakeholder call to action

Although overall donation and transplantation activity is higher in Europe than on other continents, differences between European countries in almost every aspect of transplantation activity (for example, in the number of transplantations, the number of people with a functioning graft, in rates of living versus deceased donation, and in the use of expanded criteria donors) suggest that there is ample room for improvement. Herein we review the policy and clinical measures that should be considered to increase access to transplantation and improve post-transplantation outcomes. This Roadmap, generated by a group of major European stakeholders collaborating within a Thematic Network, presents an outline of the challenges to increasing transplantation rates and proposes 12 key areas along with specific measures that should be considered to promote transplantation. This framework can be adopted by countries and institutions that are interested in advancing transplantation, both within and outside the European Union. Within this framework, a priority ranking of initiatives is suggested that could serve as the basis for a new European Union Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation.

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19 in a kidney transplant recipient

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might increase the risk of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). Although several case reports and small series have been reported in the general population, scarce information is available regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated IPA in the setting of solid organ transplantation. We describe a case of a kidney transplant recipient with severe COVID-19 that was subsequently diagnosed with probable IPA on the basis of the repeated isolation of Aspergillus fumigatus in sputum cultures, repeatedly increased serum (1 → 3)-β-d-glucan levels, and enlarging cavitary nodules in the CT scan. The evolution was favorable after initiation of isavuconazole and nebulized liposomal amphotericin B combination therapy and the withdrawal of immunosuppression.

Development of data-driven models for the flow cytometric crossmatch

HLA laboratories use virtual crossmatching (VXM) to predict recipient and donor compatibility using HLA antibody data and donor HLA type. Increasingly, transplant centers are utilizing VXM as the final compatibility determination prior to transplant. However, the VXM interpretation is based on HLA experience of individual transplant centers. This study developed data-driven algorithms that predicted flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM) outcomes using HLA antibody mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) data and donor HLA typing without the need for human interpretation.Two algorithms were evaluated; an MFI Optimal-Threshold model and a Least-Squares-Fitting model. The Optimal-Threshold model correctly determined between 81.5% and 85.5% of T or B-cell responses. A class I antibody MFI threshold of 4670 was optimal for predicting T-cell response while an antibody MFI threshold of 6180 was optimal for predicting B-cell responses. HLA class I antibodies had a 1.47-fold greater influence on FCXM outcomes than class II antibodies. HLA-B antibodies influenced T and B-cell responses more than HLA-A or -C (-B > -A > -C). The Least-Squares-Fitting model increased accuracy to 94.1% and 88.8% for T and B-cell responses, respectively. The algorithms described here provide enhanced FCXM prediction and novel insights into the influence of specific HLA antibodies on the crossmatch outcome.

Effect of Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody Value on Waitlist Outcomes for Lung Transplant Candidates

Background

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) data to determine the effect of the calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) value on waitlist outcomes for lung transplant candidates.

Material/Methods

We divided lung transplant candidates into groups based on their cPRA value at the time of waitlist activation (0–25%, 25.1–50%, 50.1–75%, and 75.1–100%) and compared each group’s waitlist outcomes to the lowest quartile (“minimally sensitized”) group. The primary outcome was lung transplantation and the secondary outcome was waitlist mortality (a composite of death on the waitlist/delisting for clinical deterioration).

Results

Compared to the minimally sensitized group, candidates with a cPRA value of 25.1–50% did not have a significantly different likelihood of undergoing lung transplant or waitlist mortality, candidates with a cPRA value of 50.1–75% were 25% less likely to undergo lung transplant and 44% more likely to die on the waitlist, and candidates with a cPRA value of 75.1–100% were 52% less likely to undergo lung transplant and 92% more likely to die on the waitlist.

Conclusions

CPRA values of greater than 50% are associated with significantly lower rates of transplantation and higher waitlist mortality.

Anti-perlecan antibodies and acute humoral rejection in hypersensitized patients without forbidden HLA specificities after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The improvement in the definition of serum anti-HLA antibodies (HLA-Abs) profiles after Luminex-assay implementation in transplant patients follow-up is clear. This success has permitted the development of hypersensitized-recipient allocation and donor-paired exchange programs improving the access to transplantation. However, non-HLA Abs have been described in transplanted patients but their effect in hypersensitized transplanted recipients is unclear.

METHODS

Twenty-seven HLA hypersensitized patients awaiting for kidney transplantation (KT) were studied and 11 of them were followed after KT. The HLA Abs profile was confirmed in serum by Single Antigen Luminex assay and panel reactive of antigens >98% was achieved in all patients. Subsequently, the ability to fix complement by C1q test was also assessed. Serum non-HLA Abs before and 1 month after transplantation were measured in the 11 hypersensitized recipients.

RESULTS

95.2% of the hypersensitized on waiting list had concomitant serum anti-HLA and non-HLA Abs. The more frequent specificity in non-HLA Abs were found against Glutathione S-transferase theta-1 (GSST-1) (in 62%) and C-terminal fragment of perlecan (LG3) (in 52%). Four out of 11 transplanted patients presented early antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) confirmed by biopsy and had serum anti-LG3 antibodies, two of them with concomitant anti-anti-angiotensin II type I receptor. Only one patient developed de novo-donor specific HLA antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of non-HLA antibodies in patients in the waiting list is largely underestimated. The concomitance anti-HLA and non-HLA Abs in hypersensitized patients is very common and the detection of non-HLA Abs in this population could allow to identify patients with an increased risk of humoral rejection.