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

Kidney transplantation in highly sensitized recipients

In kidney transplantation (KT), overcoming donor shortage is particularly challenging in patients with preexisting donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) against human leukocyte antigen (HLA), called HLA-incompatible KT (HLAi KT), carrying the risk of rejection and allograft loss. Thus, it is necessary to accurately evaluate the degree of sensitization before HLAi KT, and undertake appropriate pretreatment strategies. To determine the degree of sensitization, complement-dependent cytotoxicity has been the only method employed; the development of a method using flow cytometry further improved the test sensitivity. However, these tests present disadvantages, including the need for living cells, with a solid-phase assay developed to resolve this problem. Currently, the method using Luminex (Luminex Corp.) is widely used in clinical practice. As this method measures DSAs using single antigen beads, it is possible to classify immunological risks by measuring the type and amount of DSAs. Furthermore, there have been major advances in methods that involve DSA removal before HLAi KT. In the early stages of desensitization, plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulins were the main treatment methods employed; however, the introduction of CD20 monoclonal antibody and proteasome inhibitors further increased the success rate of desensitization. Currently, HLAi KT has been established as an important transplant method, but an understanding of DSAs and a novel desensitization treatment are warranted.

Red cell antibodies resulting in false-positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match: A unique case

A false-positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match (CDC XM) has a negative impact in donor selection process obliterating healthy, donor compatible population. A 47-year-old male with chronic kidney disease was planned for ABO-compatible renal transplantation from his sister. CDC and donor-specific antibody (DSA) lysate XM were negative 10 days before transplant. The pretransplant CDC XM showed 40% positivity. DSA lysate XM and HLA antibody screen were negative. Patient's Indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) was positive and anti-M antibody (IgG + IgM) was identified. Therapeutic plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab were used for desensitization. Decrease in positivity of CDC XM and anti-M titer was seen. The transplant was performed successfully. Red cell alloantibody should be considered in differential diagnosis of a positive CDC XM. The utility of DSA lysate XM as a pretransplant monitoring tool is immense in such situations. Institutional policies regarding plan of action in the event of positive CDC XM and negative DSA lysate XM and vice versa should be formed.

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.

A positive complement dependent cytotoxicity immunoglobulin G crossmatch due to auto-antibodies with a negative luminex bead assays in a renal transplant recipient: A Diagnostic dilemma

Transplant recipients are always at a risk of developing anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies due to prior sensitizing events such as blood transfusions, multiple pregnancies, or transplantation. Unexpected positive outcomes can be seen in complement dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) based assays due to underlying autoimmune disorders or pharmacological treatment (rituximab/intravenous immunoglobulin/anti-thymocyte globulin administration), therefore, limiting its value. CDC based assay results strongly depend on the vitality of the donor lymphocytes, highlighting another major limitation of this assay. Thus, as an alternative approach, solid phase based crossmatch assays were introduced which function independently of the cell quality and have higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting anti-HLA antibodies. We describe a case where the patient awaiting renal transplantation from living related donor was evaluated by pretransplant histocompatibility testing for the detection of anti-HLA antibodies. The histocompatibility testing revealed positive CDC anti-human globulin and flow crossmatch along with negative Luminex based assays (HLA antibody screen, luminex crossmatch, and luminex single bead assay). Detailed histocompatibility workup revealed immunoglobulin G autoantibodies which were complement activating and lympocytoxic in nature.

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.

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.

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.