Luminex-based desensitization protocols: the University of Wisconsin initial experience

Imlifidase for Kidney Transplantation of Highly Sensitized Patients With a Positive Crossmatch: The French Consensus Guidelines

Imlifidase recently received early access authorization for highly sensitized adult kidney transplant candidates with a positive crossmatch against an ABO-compatible deceased donor. These French consensus guidelines have been generated by an expert working group, in order to homogenize patient selection, associated treatments and follow-up. This initiative is part of an international effort to analyze properly the benefits and tolerance of this new costly treatment in real-life. Eligible patients must meet the following screening criteria: cPRA ≥ 98%, ≤ 65-year of age, ≥ 3 years on the waiting list, and a low risk of biopsy-related complications. The final decision to use Imlifidase will be based on the two following criteria. First, the results of a virtual crossmatch on recent serum, which shall show a MFI for the immunodominant donor-specific antibodies (DSA) > 6,000 but the value of which does not exceed 5,000 after 1:10 dilution. Second, the post-Imlifidase complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch must be negative. Patients treated with Imlifidase will receive an immunosuppressive regimen based on steroids, rATG, high dose IVIg, rituximab, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid. Frequent post-transplant testing for DSA and systematic surveillance kidney biopsies are highly recommended to monitor post-transplant DSA rebound and subclinical rejection.

Desensitization in Crossmatch-positive Kidney Transplant Candidates

Access to kidney transplantation is limited by HLA-specific sensitization. Desensitization strategies enable crossmatch-positive kidney transplantation. In this review, we describe clinical experience gained over the last 20 y using desensitization strategies before kidney transplantation and describe the different tools used (both drugs and apheresis options), including IVIg, rituximab, apheresis techniques, interleukin-6 interference, proteasome inhibition, enzymatic degradation of HLA antibodies, complement inhibition, and B cytokine interference. Although access to transplantation for highly sensitized kidney transplantation candidates has been vastly improved by desensitization strategies, it remains, however, limited by the recurrence of HLA antibodies after transplantation and the occurrence of antibody-mediated rejection.

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.

Desensitization using IVIG alone for living-donor kidney transplant: impact on donor-specific antibodies

INTRODUCTION

Sensitization to human leukocyte antigen is a barrier to. Few data have been published on desensitization using polyvalent human intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) alone.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the of 45 patients with a positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDCXM) or flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM) against living donors from January 2003 to December 2014. Of these, 12 were excluded. Patients received monthly IVIG infusions (2 g/kg) only until they had a negative T-cell and B-cell FCXM.

RESULTS

During the 33 patients, 22 (66.7%) underwent living donor kidney transplantation, 7 (21.2%) received a deceased donor graft, and 4 (12.1%) did not undergo transplantation. The median class I and II panel reactive antibodies for these patients were 80.5% (range 61%-95%) and 83.0% (range 42%-94%), respectively. Patients (81.8%) had a positive T-cell and/or B-cell CDCXM and 4 (18.2%) had a positive T-cell and/or B-cell FCXM. Patients underwent transplantation after a median of 6 (range 3-16). The median donor-specific antibody mean fluorescence intensity sum was 5057 (range 2246-11,691) before and 1389 (range 934-2492) after desensitization (p = 0.0001). Mean patient follow-up time after transplantation was 60.5 (SD, 36.8) months. Nine patients (45.0%). Death-censored graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after transplant was 86.4, 86.4, and 79.2%, respectively and patient survival was 95.5, 95.5, and 83.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Desensitization using IVIG alone is an effective strategy, allowing successful transplantation in 87.9% of these highly sensitized patients.

Immortal Time-Bias-Corrected Survival of Highly Sensitized Patients and HLA-desensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients

Introduction

In the setting of kidney transplantation (KT), we assessed the efficacy of desensitization and compared the survival of desensitized patients (HLA-incompatible KT) with similarly sensitized patients receiving HLA-compatible KT or sensitized patients still on a waiting list after adjusting for the usually unaccounted immortal time bias.

Methods

All patients in a French KT center on the waiting list between August 1994 and December 2019 with a high level of sensitization (panel-reactive antibodies [PRAs] ≥80%) were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A time-varying covariate Cox survival model was used to account for the immortal time bias. A landmark analysis was used as a sensitivity analysis.

Results

During the study period, 326 patients with high PRAs were followed, among which 147 (45%) remained on the waiting list at the time of last follow-up and 179 benefited from a KT. Thirty-six patients were desensitized, of which 30 received a kidney transplant, including eight deceased kidney donors. There were no differences in mortality rates between desensitized KT patients, nondesensitized KT patients, and waitlisted patients after adjusting for immortal time bias (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, P = 0.22). Death-censored graft survival was similar between desensitized and nondesensitized KT patients (HR = 0.92, P = 0.88 adjusting for donor age >65 years, donor status, and time on the waiting list). Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year post-KT was similar for desensitized KT patients (53.3 ± 21 vs. 53.6 ± 21 ml/min per 1.73 m² for nondesensitized patients; P = 0.95).

Conclusions

HLA-desensitization was effective for highly sensitized patients and gave access to KT without detrimental effects on patient or graft survival rates.

Induction and Donor Specific Antibodies in Low Immunologic Risk Kidney Transplant Recipients

Background

Optimal induction for patients without pretransplant donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) is poorly defined. The goal of this study was to compare the incidence of de novo DSA (dnDSA) and graft outcomes between induction therapies in patients with a negative virtual crossmatch (VXM).

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying 782 patients with a negative VXM who underwent kidney transplantation at a single, high-volume institution between January 2013 and May 2017. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess the incidence of dnDSA and allograft survival between induction therapies in this group. dnDSA is defined as the development of new post-transplant DSA, at any MFI level.

Results

Induction therapy included alemtuzumab (N=87, 11%), basiliximab (N=522, 67%), and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG; N=173, 22%). One-year graft survival was similar between groups (alemtuzumab, 100%; basiliximab, 98%; ATG, 99%). Incidence of acute rejection at 1 year was <2% and not different between the three groups. Alemtuzumab was associated with the highest incidence of dnDSA at 14%, compared with 5% and 8% in basiliximab and ATG groups, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.009). In multivariate regression analyses, alemtuzumab retained its significant association with a dnDSA HR of 2.5 (95% CI, 1.51 to 4.25; P=0.0004).

Conclusions

In summary, alemtuzumab was associated with a higher rate of dnDSA development in patients with a negative VXM; however, this finding was not associated with rejection or graft failure.

Donor-specific antibodies in kidney transplantation: the University of Wisconsin experience

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is the leading cause of allograft failure in kidney transplant recipients. This article provides a summary of the clinical research relating to donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and ABMR in kidney transplant recipients at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Transplant Center.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over 40% of the kidney transplant candidates on the UNOS waitlist are sensitized, and both preformed and de novo DSA are associated with increased risk of rejection and graft loss. We have developed graded induction-desensitization treatment and monitoring protocols based on the degree of immunologic risk. We have also implemented standard treatment and surveillance strategies for patients with ABMR. Additional important observations from our studies include high rates of ABMR in patients with positive C4d staining in postreperfusion biopsies and rise in DSA at 1 week after transplant, and increased risk of kidney allograft failure in patients with de novo DSA and ABMR, as well as in patients with HLA-DSA undetectable ABMR. We also found worse outcomes with de novo DSA following simultaneous pancreas--kidney and liver--kidney transplantation. Notably, favorable long-term graft outcomes were observed in patients with DSA who do not present the classic histopathological findings of ABMR.

SUMMARY

In order to improve long-term outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, further research focusing on the pathogenic mechanisms elicited by HLA and non-HLA DSA, and novel therapies targeting these pathways is needed.

Optimization of tacrolimus in kidney transplantation: New pharmacokinetic perspectives

Tacrolimus is the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation (KT), but its use is complicated by a narrow therapeutic index and high inter- and intra-patient pharmacokinetic variability. There are three available oral formulations of tacrolimus: immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac), extended-release tacrolimus (ER-Tac) and a MeltDose® (LCPT) formulation, the latter favoring a prolonged drug release and increased bioavailability. The time-concentration curves of these formulations are different. Compared with IR-Tac and ER-Tac, LCPT has a relatively flat pharmacokinetic profile with less fluctuation between trough and peak exposures, and a delayed peak concentration. This translates to a more stable delivery of tacrolimus and may alleviate the risk of underexposure and allograft rejection or overexposure and toxicity. The once-daily formulation of both ER-TAC and LCPT may also offer a potential advantage on patient adherence. Fast metabolizers of tacrolimus, the elderly, and human leukocyte antigen-sensitized patients are at risk of poorer outcomes after KT, possibly associated with a different exhibited pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus or different requirements in terms of exposure. Simple, practical strategies are needed to identify patients at risk of suboptimal KT outcomes and those who would benefit from a more proactively personalized approach to tacrolimus treatment. This review aims to increase awareness of the link between the pharmacokinetics of oral tacrolimus formulations and the clinical needs of patients after KT, particularly among those who have clinically significant pharmacokinetic variation of tacrolimus.

Ipsilateral versus contralateral placement of the pancreas allograft in pancreas after kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

In a diabetic, uremic kidney transplant recipient that may receive a future pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplant, the kidney is typically implanted on the left side in anticipation of the subsequent pancreas transplant on the right side. In this study, we sought to determine if ipsilateral PAK (iPAK) is as safe as contralateral PAK (cPAK).

METHODS

The 115 PAK transplants (iPAK n = 57, cPAK n = 58) were performed from 1997-2010 and results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Kidney graft survival and pancreas graft survival was similar between the two groups. Kidney graft function according to serum creatinine and eGFR was not different between the cPAK and the iPAK groups and there were no episodes of kidney graft thrombosis in either group. Subgroup analyses focusing on donor source also did not show worse outcomes for graft survivals in iPAK group when compared to cPAK group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreas and kidney graft survival in PAK transplants is unaffected by the surgical procedure and iPAK is safe.

Outcome of Pretransplantation Therapeutic Plasma Exchange in Highly Sensitized Deceased-donor Kidney Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Sensitization is associated with a high rate of post-transplantation rejection. A desensitization protocol using therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) was proposed to reduce anti-HLA antibody before transplantation, but there has been limited data regarding the efficacy of pretransplantation TPE in highly sensitized deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 142 patients who received DDKT was conducted and divided into two groups: a high-panel-reactive antibody (PRA) >50% group and a low-PRA ≤50% group. The high-PRA group was sub-divided into those who received and did not receive pretransplantation TPE. Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) were also collected pretransplantation in the high-PRA group.

RESULTS

The probability of acute rejection was 26, 4, and 9 cases/1000/person month in the high-PRA group with no TPE, the high-PRA group receiving TPE, and the low-PRA group, respectively (P = .0208). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the hazard ratio for graft rejection was 2.37 (95% confidence interval: 0.89 to 6.35) and 2.22 (95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 9.13) in the group of high-PRA who received TPE and high-PRA with no TPE, compared with the low-PRA group, respectively (P value not significant). The incidence of antibody-mediated rejection in 6 months in the DSA-positive subgroup was not different between those who received TPE or no TPE.

CONCLUSION

Desensitization with TPE is a reasonable alternative for highly sensitized DDKT. Patients who received pretransplantation TPE had a lower incidence of acute rejection compared to the group that did not receive TPE. However, pretransplantation TPE alone was not effective in the prevention of acute rejection in recipients with DSA.

Virtual HLA Crossmatching as a Means to Safely Expedite Transplantation of Imported Pancreata

BACKGROUND

Imported pancreata accumulate cold ischemia time (CIT), limiting utilization and worsening outcomes. Flow cytometric crossmatching (FXM) is a standard method to assess recipient and donor compatibility, but can prolong CIT. Single-antigen bead assays allow for detection of recipient donor-specific HLA antibodies, enabling prediction of compatibility through a "virtual crossmatch" (VXM). This study investigates the utility and outcomes of VXM after transplantation of imported pancreata.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared outcomes of 153 patients undergoing pancreas transplantation at our institution over a 3.5-year period.

RESULTS

Three patient groups were analyzed based on geographic source of the pancreas graft and the type of prospective crossmatch performed: (1) imported VXM-only, n = 39; (2) imported VXM + FXM, n = 12; and (3) local VXM + FXM, n = 102. There were no episodes of hyperacute rejection and 1 episode of early antibody-mediated rejection (<90 days) in the imported VXM group. Death-censored graft survival, patient survival, and rejection rates were comparable among the recipient groups. For pancreata imported from United Network of Organ Sharing regions 3 and 4, proceeding to surgery without an FXM reduced CIT by 5.1 hours (P < 0.001). The time from organ arrival at the hospital to operation start was significantly shorter in the VXM-only group compared with the VXM + FXM group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual crossmatch helps minimize CIT without increasing rejection or adversely affecting graft survival, making it a viable method to increase pancreas graft utilization across distant organ sharing regions.

In Kidney Transplant Recipients With a Positive Virtual Crossmatch, High PRA was Associated With Lower Incidence of Viral Infections

BACKGROUND

There is little information on the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with CMV and BK infections in sensitized patients.

METHODS

We examined 254 consecutive kidney transplant recipients with positive virtual crossmatch and negative flow crossmatch.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients (43%) developed CMV disease or BK infection or nephropathy (BKVN). Specifically, 78 patients (30.7%) developed BK infection, 19 (7.5%) had BKVN, and 33 (12.9%) presented with CMV disease. Four patients (1.5%) developed both infections. Mean time from transplant to diagnosis for BK and CMV was 4.07 ± 3.10 and 8.35 ± 5.20 months, respectively. African American (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.37-5.07; P = 0.003), thymoglobulin induction (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.38-3.43; P = 0.0008), DSA greater than 500 MFI at transplant (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.57; P = 0.03), history of diabetes (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01-2.60; P = 0.04), CMV D+/R- (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.06-5.01; P = 0.03), and acute rejection (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.99-2.24; P = 0.05) were associated with increase incident of BK/CMV, whereas rituximab (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91; P = 0.02), peak PRA greater than 80% (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P = 0.01), and living donor transplant (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P = 0.01) were associated with a lower likelihood of infection. Thymoglobulin induction (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.02-6.13; P = 0.04), and peak PRA greater than 80% (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.86; P = 0.02) remained significant predictors of infection after multivariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more than 40% of patients with a positive virtual crossmatch presented with BK infection/CMV disease, high PRA greater than 80% seemed to be protective.

In kidney transplant recipients with BK polyomavirus infection, early BK nephropathy, microvascular inflammation, and serum creatinine are risk factors for graft loss

BACKGROUND

Little information is available on the risk factors for graft loss in kidney transplant recipients with BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) nephropathy (BKVN) in the presence or absence of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

METHODS

We examined the risk factors for graft loss in consecutive kidney allograft recipients with biopsy-confirmed BKVN, with or without concomitant AMR.

RESULTS

A total of 1904 kidney transplants were performed at our institution during 2005-2011. Of these, 330 (17.33%) were diagnosed with BKPyV viremia, and 69 were diagnosed with BKVN (3.6%). Eleven patients had a concomitant diagnosis of AMR. Patients with AMR were characterized by significantly higher peak panel-reactive antibody, retransplant rates, and desensitization preconditioning at the time of transplantation, as well as microvascular inflammation (MVI = glomerulitis + peritubular capillaritis), C4d score, and donor-specific antibody at the time of diagnosis (P ≤ 0.01). Treatment with plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and cidofovir was more prevalent in this group (P ≤ 0.02). Univariate analyses assessing the risk factors for graft loss in all patients with BKVN, identified an independent association of African-American race, deceased-donor transplantation, serum creatinine (Scr), MVI, and early disease (BKVN within 6 months of transplant) with poor outcomes. Multivariate analyses retained only 3 variables: Scr >2 mg/dL (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-9.7, P = 0.0004), early BKVN (HR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.3, P = 0.004), and MVI (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.8, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

These observations suggest that, in patients with BK infection, early BKVN, Scr >2, and MVI are predictors of poor outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine effective treatment strategies for BKVN, with or without AMR.

Outpatient Management of Delayed Graft Function Is Associated With Reduced Length of Stay Without an Increase in Adverse Events

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common and costly complication of kidney transplantation. In July 2011, we established a multidisciplinary DGF clinic managed by nurse practitioners to facilitate early discharge and intensive management of DGF in the outpatient setting. We compared length of stay, 30-day readmission, acute rejection, and patient/graft survival in 697 consecutive deceased donor kidney transplantations performed between July 2009 and July 2014. Patients were divided into three groups: no DGF (n = 487), DGF before implementation of the DGF clinic (n = 118), and DGF clinic (n = 92). Baseline characteristics including age, gender, panel reactive antibody, retransplantation rates, HLA mismatches, induction, and maintenance immunosuppression were not significantly different between pre- and post-DGF clinic groups. Length of stay was significantly longer in pre-DGF clinic (10.9 ± 6.2 vs. 6.1 ± 2.1 days, p < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission (21% vs. 16%), graft loss (7% vs. 20%), and patient death (2% vs. 11%) did not differ significantly between pre- and post-DGF clinic. Patients in the DGF clinic were less likely to develop acute rejection (21% vs. 40%, p = 0.006). Outpatient management of DGF in a specialized clinic is associated with substantially shorter hospitalization and lower incidence of acute rejection without significant difference in 30-day readmission or patient and graft survival.

C1q Binding Activity of De Novo Donor-specific HLA Antibodies in Renal Transplant Recipients With and Without Antibody-mediated Rejection

BACKGROUND

Complement fixation by donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) is a primary mechanism for antibody-mediated damage of organ allografts. Using a recently developed kit that measures C1q binding to distinguish complement fixing and nonfixing antibodies, studies showed that C1q + DSAs have a higher risk of rejection and graft loss compared to C1q-DSA. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of the C1q-binding assay to identify clinically significant de novo DSA in renal transplant recipients and to define the properties of DSA that confer C1q binding ability.

METHODS

The DSA-positive sera from 34 kidney recipients, 19 with biopsy-proven antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) + and 15 who were AMR-, were assayed in C1q-binding assays (C1q Screen; One Lambda, Inc. Canoga Park, CA). The correlation between C1q-binding activity, presence of AMR, DSA mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) values, and immunoglobulin G isotype was determined.

RESULTS

Fifty-three percent (10/19) of sera from AMR+ patients had C1q + DSA, whereas only 13% (2/15) of sera from AMR- patients contained C1q + DSA. C1q + DSA exhibited significantly higher MFI values regardless of whether they were from AMR+ or AMR- patients (16,118 ± 6698 vs 6429 ± 4003; P < 0.0001). C1q + DSA converted to C1q - when diluted to a comparable MFI level as the C1q - DSA from AMR- patients, and some C1q - antibodies converted to C1q + when concentrated to MFI levels comparable to those observed for AMR+/C1q + sera.

CONCLUSIONS

The C1q binding activity by de novo DSA in patients with AMR largely reflects differences in antibody strength. The C1q assay does not appear to distinguish functionally distinct DSA with clinical significance.

Global scientific vision with local vigilance: renal transplantation in developing countries

CONTEXT

Renal Transplantation is the most effective treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease, which is fortunately available in the developing countries, even for poor people. Nonetheless, the way forward should be the implementation of advanced science of transplantation, allograft monitoring abilities, knowledge about the epidemiology of renal disease in any specific region, awareness about the influence of ethenic and genetic factors immunosuppressant bioavailability, and post-transplant complications all strongly affecting the patients and allograft survival.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITIONS

In this process we searched mainly in PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar data bases for key words of renal allograft monitoring, post-transplant infections, renal/kidney transplantation and Iran. We followed the cross articles to follow our main idea to find a connection between modern advancement in renal allograft monitoring and our practice in developing countries. Another focus was on the special infectious and non-infection complication that do exist in specific region and need specific considerations.

RESULTS

Implementation of modern techniques of immune monitoring, allograft function, awareness about the specific infectious and non-infectious disease in each region improves the quality of renal transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

We need to combine the advance scientific vision with local vigilance to achieve the best outcome in renal allograft recipients.

Antithymocyte globulin is associated with a lower incidence of de novo donor-specific antibodies in moderately sensitized renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) are associated with antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) and graft failure after kidney transplantation. The effects of induction immunosuppression on dnDSA are unknown.

METHODS

The study population comprised 114 consecutive moderately sensitized (positive DSA and negative flow crossmatch) recipients who received deceased donor renal transplants between December 2009 and November 2011. Patients were divided into two groups based on induction immunosuppression: antithymocyte globulin (ATG) (n=85) or basiliximab (n=29) and were followed up for 36 months.

RESULTS

Patients in the ATG group received a mean dose of 4.98 mg/kg ± 7.9 mg/kg, had a significantly higher PRA, and received more plasmapheresis and IVIG at the time of transplant. The incidence of dnDSA (P=0.02, HR=0.33, 95% CI 0.09-1.24) and ABMR (P=0.002, HR=0.2, 95% CI 0.04-0.87) was significantly lower in the ATG group. In multivariate regression analyses, ATG induction was the single most important variable associated with both ABMR and dnDSA.

CONCLUSIONS

In moderately sensitized deceased donor renal transplant recipients, induction with ATG is associated with a reduction in the occurrence of dnDSA and ABMR when compared with basiliximab.

Characterization of transfusion-elicited acute antibody-mediated rejection in a rat model of kidney transplantation

Animal models of antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) may provide important evidence supporting proof of concept. We elicited donor-specific antibodies (DSA) by transfusion of donor blood (Brown Norway RT1(n) ) into a complete mismatch recipient (Lewis RT1(l) ) 3 weeks prior to kidney transplantation. Sensitized recipients had increased anti-donor splenocyte IgG1, IgG2b and IgG2c DSA 1 week after transplantation. Histopathology was consistent with ABMR characterized by diffuse peritubular capillary C4d and moderate microvascular inflammation with peritubular capillaritis + glomerulitis > 2. Immunofluorescence studies of kidney allograft tissue demonstrated a greater CD68/CD3 ratio in sensitized animals, primarily of the M1 (pro-inflammatory) phenotype, consistent with cytokine gene analyses that demonstrated a predominant T helper (TH )1 (interferon-γ, IL-2) profile. Immunoblot analyses confirmed the activation of the M1 macrophage phenotype as interferon regulatory factor 5, inducible nitric oxide synthase and phagocytic NADPH oxidase 2 were significantly up-regulated. Clinical biopsy samples in sensitized patients with acute ABMR confirmed the dominance of M1 macrophage phenotype in humans. Despite the absence of tubulitis, we were unable to exclude the effects of T cell-mediated rejection. These studies suggest that M1 macrophages and TH 1 cytokines play an important role in the pathogenesis of acute mixed rejection in sensitized allograft recipients.

Diagnosis and management of antibody-mediated rejection: current status and novel approaches

Advances in multimodal immunotherapy have significantly reduced acute rejection rates and substantially improved 1-year graft survival following renal transplantation. However, long-term (10-year) survival rates have stagnated over the past decade. Recent studies indicate that antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is among the most important barriers to improving long-term outcomes. Improved understanding of the roles of acute and chronic ABMR has evolved in recent years following major progress in the technical ability to detect and quantify recipient anti-HLA antibody production. Additionally, new knowledge of the immunobiology of B cells and plasma cells that pertains to allograft rejection and tolerance has emerged. Still, questions regarding the classification of ABMR, the precision of diagnostic approaches, and the efficacy of various strategies for managing affected patients abound. This review article provides an overview of current thinking and research surrounding the pathophysiology and diagnosis of ABMR, ABMR-related outcomes, ABMR prevention and treatment, as well as possible future directions in treatment.

Acute cellular and antibody-mediated rejection of the pancreas allograft: incidence, risk factors and outcomes

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after pancreas transplantation is a recently identified entity. We describe the incidence of, risk factors for, and outcomes after AMR, and the correlation of C4d immunostaining and donor-specific antibody (DSA) in the diagnosis of AMR. We retrospectively analyzed 162 pancreas transplants in 159 patients who underwent 94 pancreas allograft biopsies between 2006 and 2009. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for pancreas graft AMR. One-year rejection rates and survival after rejection were calculated by Kaplan-Meier methods. AMR occurred in 10% of patients by 1-year posttransplant. Multivariate risk factors identified for AMR include nonprimary simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant, primary solitary pancreas (PAN) transplant and race mismatch. After pancreas rejection, patient survival was 100% but 20% (8 of 41) of pancreas grafts failed within 1 year. Graft survival after acute cellular rejection (ACR), AMR and mixed rejection was similar. Of biopsies that stained >5% C4d, 80% were associated with increased Class I DSA. In summary, AMR occurs at a measurable rate after pancreas transplantation, and the diagnosis should be actively sought using C4d staining and DSA levels in patients with graft dysfunction, especially after nonprimary SPK and primary PAN transplantation.

Use of apheresis in solid organ transplantation

Apheresis is an effective desensitization modality for removing antibodies against donor-specific human leukocyte antigens or ABO blood type antigens to facilitate transplantation. Apheresis is also used to treat acute antibody-mediated rejection, in conjunction with immunosuppressive medications, in recurrent focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis and other glomerular diseases, in correction of coagulopathy, in supportive therapy in acute liver failure patients awaiting liver transplant, and in the treatment of drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy. Transplant recipients who receive apheresis need close monitoring for infections and for potential bleeding complications associated with surgery or biopsy.

Consensus guidelines on the testing and clinical management issues associated with HLA and non-HLA antibodies in transplantation

BACKGROUND

The introduction of solid-phase immunoassay (SPI) technology for the detection and characterization of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies in transplantation while providing greater sensitivity than was obtainable by complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity (CDC) assays has resulted in a new paradigm with respect to the interpretation of donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Although the SPI assay performed on the Luminex instrument (hereafter referred to as the Luminex assay), in particular, has permitted the detection of antibodies not detectable by CDC, the clinical significance of these antibodies is incompletely understood. Nevertheless, the detection of these antibodies has led to changes in the clinical management of sensitized patients. In addition, SPI testing raises technical issues that require resolution and careful consideration when interpreting antibody results.

METHODS

With this background, The Transplantation Society convened a group of laboratory and clinical experts in the field of transplantation to prepare a consensus report and make recommendations on the use of this new technology based on both published evidence and expert opinion. Three working groups were formed to address (a) the technical issues with respect to the use of this technology, (b) the interpretation of pretransplantation antibody testing in the context of various clinical settings and organ transplant types (kidney, heart, lung, liver, pancreas, intestinal, and islet cells), and (c) the application of antibody testing in the posttransplantation setting. The three groups were established in November 2011 and convened for a "Consensus Conference on Antibodies in Transplantation" in Rome, Italy, in May 2012. The deliberations of the three groups meeting independently and then together are the bases for this report.

RESULTS

A comprehensive list of recommendations was prepared by each group. A summary of the key recommendations follows. Technical Group: (a) SPI must be used for the detection of pretransplantation HLA antibodies in solid organ transplant recipients and, in particular, the use of the single-antigen bead assay to detect antibodies to HLA loci, such as Cw, DQA, DPA, and DPB, which are not readily detected by other methods. (b) The use of SPI for antibody detection should be supplemented with cell-based assays to examine the correlations between the two types of assays and to establish the likelihood of a positive crossmatch (XM). (c) There must be an awareness of the technical factors that can influence the results and their clinical interpretation when using the Luminex bead technology, such as variation in antigen density and the presence of denatured antigen on the beads. Pretransplantation Group: (a) Risk categories should be established based on the antibody and the XM results obtained. (b) DSA detected by CDC and a positive XM should be avoided due to their strong association with antibody-mediated rejection and graft loss. (c) A renal transplantation can be performed in the absence of a prospective XM if single-antigen bead screening for antibodies to all class I and II HLA loci is negative. This decision, however, needs to be taken in agreement with local clinical programs and the relevant regulatory bodies. (d) The presence of DSA HLA antibodies should be avoided in heart and lung transplantation and considered a risk factor for liver, intestinal, and islet cell transplantation. Posttransplantation Group: (a) High-risk patients (i.e., desensitized or DSA positive/XM negative) should be monitored by measurement of DSA and protocol biopsies in the first 3 months after transplantation. (b) Intermediate-risk patients (history of DSA but currently negative) should be monitored for DSA within the first month. If DSA is present, a biopsy should be performed. (c) Low-risk patients (nonsensitized first transplantation) should be screened for DSA at least once 3 to 12 months after transplantation. If DSA is detected, a biopsy should be performed. In all three categories, the recommendations for subsequent treatment are based on the biopsy results.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive list of recommendations is provided covering the technical and pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring of HLA antibodies in solid organ transplantation. The recommendations are intended to provide state-of-the-art guidance in the use and clinical application of recently developed methods for HLA antibody detection when used in conjunction with traditional methods.

Increased C4d in post-reperfusion biopsies and increased donor specific antibodies at one-week post transplant are risk factors for acute rejection in mild to moderately sensitized kidney transplant recipients

In order to define the intensity of immunosuppression, we examined risk factors for acute rejection in desensitization protocols that use baseline donor specific antibody levels measured as mean fluorescence intensity (MFImax). The study included 146 patients transplanted with a negative flow crossmatch and a mean follow-up of 18 months with the majority (83%) followed for at least 1 year. At the time of transplant, mean calculated panel reactive antibody and MFImax ranged from 10.3% to 57.2%, and 262 to 1691, respectively, between low and high-risk protocols. Mean MFImax increased significantly from transplant to one-week and one-year. The incidence of acute rejection (mean 1.65 months) as a combination of clinical and subclinical rejection was 32% including 14% cellular, 12% antibody-mediated and 6% mixed rejection. In regression analyses, only C4d staining in post-reperfusion biopsies (hazard ratio 3.3, confidence interval 1.71 to 6.45) and increased donor specific antibodies at 1 week post-transplant were significant predictors of rejection. A rise in MFImax by 500 was associated with a 2.8-fold risk of rejection. Thus, C4d staining in post-reperfusion biopsies and an early rise in donor specific antibodies after transplantation are risk factors for rejection in moderately sensitized patients.

Living donor kidney transplantation in crossmatch-positive patients enabled by peritransplant immunoadsorption and anti-CD20 therapy

Living donor kidney transplantation in crossmatch-positive patients is a challenge that requires specific measures. Ten patients with positive crossmatch results (n = 9) or negative crossmatch results but strong donor-specific antibodies (DSA; n = 1) were desensitized using immunoadsorption (IA) and anti-CD20 antibody induction. IA was continued after transplantation and accompanied by HLA antibody monitoring and protocol biopsies. After a median of 10 IA treatments, all patients were desensitized successfully and transplanted. Median levels of mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of Luminex-DSA before desensitization were 6203 and decreased after desensitization and immediately before transplantation to 891. Patients received a median of seven post-transplant IA treatments. At last visit, after a median follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 10 patients had a functioning allograft and a median Luminex-DSA of 149 MFI; serum creatinine was 1.6 mg/dl, and protein to creatinine ratio 0.1. Reversible acute antibody-mediated rejection was diagnosed in three patients. One allograft was lost after the second post-transplant year in a patient with catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome. We describe a treatment algorithm for desensitization of living donor kidney transplant recipients that allows the rapid elimination of DSA with a low rate of side effects and results in good graft outcome.