Histocompatibility and management of the highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate

Novel insights in the clinical management of hyperimmune patients before and after transplantation

Despite improvements in anti-Human Leucocyte Antigens antibody detection, identification, and characterization offer a better in peri-operative management techniques, antibodies remain a serious cause of morbidity and mortality for patients both before and after organ transplantation. Hyperimmune patients are disadvantaged by having to wait longer to receive an organ from a suitably matched donor. They could benefit from desensitization protocols in both pre- and post-transplantation period. Clinical studies are underway to highlight which best desensitization strategies could be assure the best outcome in both heart and kidney transplantation. Although most clinical evidence about desensitization strategies by using anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, interleukin-6 blockade, cysteine protease and complement inhibitors, comes from kidney transplantation studies, many of the debated novel concepts can be easily applied to desensitization also in heart transplantation. Here, we discuss the candidates and recipients' management by using most common standard of care and novel therapeutics, desensitization endpoints, and strategies for future studies.

The national landscape of deceased donor kidney transplantation for the highly sensitized: Transplant rates, waitlist mortality, and posttransplant survival under KAS

Deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) rates for highly sensitized (HS) candidates increased early after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in 2014. However, this may represent a bolus effect, and a granular investigation of the current state of DDKT for HS candidates remains lacking. We studied 270 722 DDKT candidates from the SRTR from 12/4/2011 to 12/3/2014 ("pre-KAS") and 12/4/2014 to 12/3/2017 ("post-KAS"), analyzing DDKT rates for HS candidates using adjusted negative binomial regression. Post-KAS, candidates with the highest levels of sensitization had an increased DDKT rate compared with pre-KAS (cPRA 98% adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]:1.27 1.772.46 P = .001, cPRA 99% aIRR:3.18 4.365.98 P < .001, cPRA 99.5-99.9% aIRR:16.91 24.2934.89 P < .001, and cPRA 99.9%+ aIRR:8.79 11.5815.26 P < .001). To determine whether these changes produced more equitable access to DDKT, we compared DDKT rates of HS to non-HS candidates (cPRA 0-79%). Post-KAS, cPRA, 98% candidates had an equivalent DDKT rate (aIRR:0.65 0.941.36 , P = .8) to non-HS candidates, whereas 99% candidates had a higher DDKT rate (aIRR:1.19 1.682.38 , P = .02). Although cPRA 99.5-99.9% candidates had an increased DDKT rate (aIRR:2.46 3.504.98 , P < .001) compared to non-HS candidates, cPRA 99.9%+ candidates had a significantly lower DDKT rate (aIRR:0.29 0.400.56 , P < .001). KAS has improved access to DDKT for HS candidates, although substantial imbalance exists between cPRA 99.5-99.9% and 99.9%+ candidates.