A novel strategy for the detection and definition of HLA-specific antibodies in patients awaiting renal transplantation

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.

Cardiac antibody-mediated rejection

Many factors limit short- and long-term survival after pediatric heart transplantation. Historically, attention had been directed toward T-cell responses and acute cellular rejection. Presence of pretransplant antibodies against HLA is associated with increased donor wait times and poor post-transplant outcomes. Therapies aimed to mitigate circulating antibodies include plasmapheresis, protein A immunoadsorption columns, intravenous immune globulin, rituximab, and bortezomib. The negative effects of B cells, HLA antibodies, and AMR and potential interventions are the focus of this review article.

Clinical relevance of pretransplant human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies in renal patients waiting for a transplant: a risk factor

The use of highly sensitive solid-phase antibody detection assays, including x-MAP multiple bead-based technology (Luminex), has greatly enhanced our ability to accurately detect and define very low levels of HLA antibodies. These developments have led to patients having increasing lists of antibody specificities (which may not be clinically relevant), resulting in a new "technological barrier" to transplantation in sensitized patients. Alloantibodies play a major role in all types of solid organ rejection; the presence of low-titer donor-specific antigen (DSA) identified pretransplant is associated with an increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). However, these low-titer antibodies do not represent an absolute contraindication to transplant. Improvement in the diagnosis and treatment of AMR will allow sensitized patients with DSA to be successfully transplanted in the short term, but extended follow-up is required to ensure acceptable long-term graft survival in this group. These factors must be integrated into the decision algorithms for immunosuppressive treatment in patients at immunologic risk.

Tools for human leukocyte antigen antibody detection and their application to transplanting sensitized patients

In recent years there have been major advances in the technology for the detection and definition of human leukocyte antigen antibodies. In this overview we describe the evolution in laboratory technology, the techniques currently available and consider their application in antibody specificity definition and in understanding a patient's sensitization profile. We discuss the importance of antibody specificity definition in facilitating efficient national organ allocation and informing clinical discussion regarding the appropriate pathway for sensitized patients awaiting renal transplantation.

Posttransplantation production of donor HLA-specific antibodies as a predictor of renal transplant outcome

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine whether the production, in renal transplant recipients, of antibodies directed against donor HLA mismatches is predictive of transplant failure.

METHODS

The failure study group comprised 112 adult recipients of primary renal transplants who had re-entered the transplant waiting list after failure of the first graft. A control group of 123 recipients with functioning transplants was selected from transplantations performed during the same time period, in which patients had equivalent HLA matching and immunosuppression and a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Sera taken before transplantation and at 1, 3, and 6 months and annually after transplantation were tested by enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) for the presence of HLA class I- and class II-specific antibodies. Antibody specificity was defined by a combination of cytotoxicity, ELISA, and flow cytometry techniques to determine whether the antibodies were directed against donor mismatches.

RESULTS

All recipients were negative for donor HLA-specific antibodies before transplantation. After transplantation, 57 (50.9%) of the 112 patients in the failure group produced donor HLA-specific antibodies compared with 2 (1.6%) of the 123 controls (P<0.0001; odds ratio [OR]=64.98; confidence interval [CI], 14.78-399.51). For 60% of the donor-specific antibody-positive patients, antibodies were detected before transplant failure. In 17 cases, these were class I specific; in 14 cases, class II specific; and in 3 cases, specific for both class I and II.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that the production of posttransplantation antibodies directed against donor HLA-A, -B, -Cw, -DR, and -DQ mismatches are all strongly predictive of transplant failure.

A comparison of enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays and flow cytometry techniques for the detection of HLA specific antibodies

LATM, Quikscreen (QS), and B-Screen (QSB) are ELISA-based tests for the detection of HLA specific antibodies. FlowPRA beads are microparticles coated with HLA antigens for the detection of HLA specific antibodies by flow cytometry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the LATM, QS, QSB, and FlowPRA screening tests. One hundred sixty-three sera from renal transplant patients were tested using LATM, FlowPRA, QS, and QSB. Discrepant results were further investigated using complement dependent cytotoxicity, QuikID, and PRA-STAT. When QS was compared with LATMI and FlowPRAI for the detection of HLA class I specific antibodies the overall concordance was 82.8% with no particular specificity missed by any one test. Comparing QSB with LATMII and FlowPRAII, for the detection of HLA class II specific antibodies, there was 90.7% concordance. Although the overall concordance was better for class II specific antibodies, QSB failed to detect antibodies to HLA-DQ in a number of samples from different patients. Of the methods tested, flow cytometry using FlowPRA beads appeared to be the most sensitive and specific, missing the least number of specificities. However, the ELISA methods offer the advantage of being more suitable for testing large numbers of samples in a more time- and cost-effective manner.

Flow cytometric detection of HLA-specific antibodies as a predictor of heart allograft rejection

BACKGROUND

Historically, panel reactive antibody (PRA) analysis to detect HLA antibodies has been performed using cell-based complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) techniques. Recently, a flow cytometric procedure (FlowPRA) was introduced as an alternative approach to detect HLA antibodies. The flow methodology, using a solid phase matrix to which soluble HLA class I or class II antigens are attached is significantly more sensitive than CDC assays. However, the clinical relevance of antibodies detected exclusively by FlowPRAhas not been established. In this study of cardiac allograft recipients, FlowPRA was performed on pretransplant sera with no detectable PRA activity as assessed by CDC assays. FlowPRA antibody activity was then correlated with clinical outcome.

METHODS

PRA analysis by anti-human globulin enhanced (AHG) CDC and FlowPRA was performed on sera corresponding to final cross-match specimens from 219 cardiac allograft recipients. In addition, sera collected 3-6 months posttransplant from 91 patients were evaluated. The presence or absence of antibodies was correlated with episodes of rejection and patient survival. A rejection episode was considered to have occurred based on treatment with antirejection medication and/or histology.

RESULTS

By CDC, 12 patients (5.5%) had pretransplant PRA >10%. In contrast, 72 patients (32.9%) had pretransplant anti-HLA antibodies detectable by FlowPRA (34 patients with only class I antibodies; 7 patients with only class II antibodies; 31 patients with both class I and class II antibodies). A highly significant association (P<0.001) was observed between pretransplant HLA antibodies detected by FlowPRA and episodes of rejection that occurred during the first posttransplant year. Fifteen patients died within the first year posttransplant. Of nine retrospective flow cytometric cross-matches that were performed, two were in recipients who had no pretransplant antibodies detectable by FlowPRA. Both of these cross-matches were negative. In contrast, five of seven cross-matches were positive among recipients who had FlowPRA detectable pretransplant antibodies. Posttransplant serum specimens from 91 patients were also assessed for antibodies by FlowPRA. Among this group, 58 patients had FlowPRA antibodies and there was a trend (although not statistically significant) for a biopsy documented episode of rejection to have occurred among patients with these antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, our data suggest that pre- and posttransplant HLA antibodies detectable by FlowPRA and not AHG-CDC identify cardiac allograft recipients at risk for rejection. Furthermore, a positive donor reactive flow cytometric cross-match is significantly associated with graft loss. Thus, we believe that detection and identification of HLA-specific antibodies can be used to stratify patients into high and low risk categories. An important observation of this study is that in the majority of donor:recipient pairs, pretransplant HLA antibodies were not directed against donor antigens. We speculate that these non-donor-directed antibodies are surrogate markers that correspond to previous T cell activation. Thus, the rejection episodes that occur in these patients are in response to donor-derived MHC peptides that share cryptic determinants with the HLA antigens that initially sensitized the patient.

Sensitization and sensitivity: defining the unsensitized patient

BACKGROUND

Since the landmark studies of Patel and Terasaki in the late 1960s, pretransplant cross-matching has been performed by HLA laboratories on a 24-hr/7-day basis. In fact, regulating agencies such as the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics and the United Network for Organ Sharing have mandated prospective crossmatching for selected solid organ transplants. However, two recent publications (Transplantation 1998; 66: 1833; and Transplantation 1998; 66: 1835) have suggested a change to this approach. Specifically, those authors advocate the transplantation of non-sensitized individuals without a final prospective cross-match as a means to reduce cold ischemia time and the incidence of delayed graft function. Such considerations were predicated upon results generated by cytotoxicity-based antibody screening. We and others, however, have reported that a flow cytometric-based assay is a more sensitive method to detect alloantibodies than cytotoxicity. Furthermore, an increasing number of reports document that graft survival is improved among patients whose final flow cytometric crossmatches were negative compared to patients with positive flow cytometric crossmatches. Although we agree that it is reasonable to transplant truly non-sensitized patients without a prospective final crossmatch, our data demonstrate that a large number of patients deemed non-sensitized by cytotoxicity-based antibody assessment are, in fact, sensitized.

METHODS

Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) testing was performed with 703 sera from 527 patients. The patient population consisted of individuals awaiting either renal or cardiac transplantation. PRA evaluations were performed using lymphocyte cytotoxicity (antiglobulin-enhanced, complement-dependent cytotoxicity [AHG-CDC]) or assays (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]; flow cytometry) in which solubilized HLA molecules were affixed to solid phase matrices.

RESULTS

PRA activity in 264 sera from 88 patients was evaluated by AHG-CDC, ELISA, and flow cytometry. Results among the three methods were concordant for 83% of these sera. Discordant results occurred with 32 samples and demonstrated a distinct hierarchy in the sensitivity of the three techniques to detect alloantibodies. None of the 32 sera were positive by AHG-CDC, 20/32 were positive by ELISA, and 32/32 were positive by flow cytometry. Subsequent studies revealed that, among 527 patients, 302 (57%) exhibited 0% PRA by AHG-CDC. Of these 302 AHG-CDC-negative patients, 76 (25%) had class I or class II antibodies detectable using a flow cytometric approach. Within the AHG-CDC-negative/flow cytometric-positive patients, PRA values exhibited a wide range (6-99%) for both class I and class II antibodies. The average PRA was 27% and 38% for class I and II, respectively. Retrospective flow cytometric crossmatches performed for 30 recipients of cardiac allografts whose AHG-CDC PRA were 0% revealed that 11/30 crossmatches were positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of transplanting non-sensitized patients without a prospective final crossmatch is appealing and, if bona fide, clearly makes sense. However, our data demonstrate that how a patient is deemed non-sensitized is critical. The difference between AHG- and flow cytometric-based PRA testing is significant and can result in transplantation of alloimmunized patients considered to be non-sensitized. Therefore, we recommend that, if a transplant center chooses to forego a prospective final crossmatch, the decision to do so should be based on methods more sensitive than AHG-CDC.

An association between antibodies specific for endothelial cells and renal transplant failure

Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-specific antibodies, present at the time of transplant, cause renal transplant rejection but cases of rejection of HLA-identical renal transplants indicate that antibodies to non-HLA antigens may also be detrimental. There is increasing evidence that antibodies to antigens present on endothelial cells and monocytes, and on endothelial cells alone, are associated with transplant rejection. We investigated 105 patients with failed renal transplants for the presence of endothelial cell reactive antibodies and compared them with 94 successful transplant patients to determine the role of non-HLA antibodies in transplant failure. Patient sera were tested by enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) using as a target fixed cells either from the endothelial/epithelial cell line EAHy.926 or primary cultures of human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Antibody binding was detected using an alkaline phosphatase-conjugated anti-human immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody. Fourteen of the 105 failed transplant patients had endothelial cell-reactive antibodies as compared with only three of the 94 patients with successful transplants (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02). Antibody-positive sera were absorbed with the epithelial cell line A549 to remove antibodies directed against the epithelial component of EAHy.926 and with a pool of lymphoblastoid cell line cells to remove HLA-specific antibodies. Absorption did not reduce antibody activity showing the antibodies to be directed against endothelial cell determinants. Antibody-positive sera were also tested by flow cytometry against the monocyte cell line THP-1 and 13 of the 14 patients were negative. In conclusion, we have demonstrated the presence of IgG antibodies directed against endothelial cell determinants in renal transplant recipients in association with renal transplant failure.