Prognostic tools to assess candidacy for and efficacy of antibody-removal therapy.
Am J Transplant 2019;
19:381-390. [PMID:
29981209 DOI:
10.1111/ajt.15007]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2018] [Revised: 06/20/2018] [Accepted: 07/01/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Currently, the ability to predict or monitor the efficacy of HLA antibody-removal therapies is deficient. We previously reported that titration studies are a consistent and accurate means of assessing antibody strength. To test whether titration studies can also predict which patients are better candidates for desensitization, we studied 38 patients from 3 centers (29 receiving plasmapheresis/low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg]; 9 patients receiving high-dose IVIg). For patients undergoing plasmapheresis/low-dose IVIg, antibody titer reduction correlated with number of treatment cycles for both class I and II antibodies but only up to approximately 4 cycles. Reduction in titer slowed with additional cycles, suggesting a limit to the efficacy of this approach. Furthermore, initial titer (predesensitization) can guide the selection of candidates for successful antibody-removal treatment. In our experience, patients with antibodies at an initial titer >1:512 could not be reduced to the goal of a negative lymphocyte crossmatch, corresponding to a 1:16 titer, despite a significant increase in the number of treatment cycles. Change in mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) value did not correlate with success of treatment if initial MFI values were >10 000, likely due to single antigen bead saturation. Overall, we present a potential prognostic tool to predict candidacy and a monitoring tool to assess efficacy of desensitization treatment.
Collapse