Alert! Does Prolonged Temporary Support Induce an Immunological Response?

Little is known about the development of human leukocyte antigen antibodies with use of the temporary transvalvular pump 5.5 mechanical circulatory support device. This case reports a patient who developed de novo antibodies prior to his heart transplantation and remains free of any episodes of rejection post transplantation to date. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Sex-Specific Outcomes of Candidates Listed as the Highest Priority Status for Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: While sex differences in heart transplantation (HT) waitlist mortality have been previously described, waitlist and HT outcomes by sex of patients in the highest urgency strata (Status 1) since implementation of the 2018 allocation system change in the United States are unknown. We hypothesized that women listed as Status 1 may have worse outcomes due to adverse events on temporary mechanical circulatory support. METHODS: The analysis included adult, single-organ HT waitlist candidates listed as Status 1 at any time while listed, after the HT allocation system change (from October 18, 2018 through March 31, 2022). The primary outcome was the rate of HT by sex, assessed using multivariable competing risk analysis where waitlist removal for death or clinical deterioration was the competing event. Post-HT survival by sex of waitlist candidates transplanted as a Status 1 was also compared. RESULTS: Of 1120 Status 1 waitlist candidates (23.8% women), women had a lower rate of HT compared to men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.88]; P<0.001) and a higher rate of delisting for death or medical unsuitability (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.05-2.09]; P=0.026). Calculated panel reactive antibody did not account for all the harm observed. Post-HT survival of Status 1 candidates by sex was similar (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.62-2.06]; P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Women have a lower rate of HT and higher rate of delisting for death or clinical deterioration at the highest urgent status, which appears to be mediated but not fully explained by calculated panel reactive antibody levels. Further investigation into the safety profile of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in women is needed.

Eplet-Predicted Antigens: An Attempt to Introduce Eplets into Unacceptable Antigen Determination and Calculated Panel-Reactive Antibody Calculation Facilitating Kidney Allocation.

(1) Calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) is a measure of sensitization based on unacceptable antigens (UAs). Determination of UAs based on single-antigen bead assays at allele or antigen levels may be inappropriate. We aimed to introduce eplets for better assessment of sensitization; (2) 900 recipients and 1427 donors were enrolled for candidate or donor pools, respectively. Eplets were from the HLA Epitope Registry. UAs were determined by anti-HLA antibodies identified using LIFECODES Single Antigen (LSA) kits. CPRA values were calculated using a simplified method of donor filtering; (3) HLA antigens containing all eplets of an HLA antigen in LSA kits (LSA antigen) were defined as eplet-predicted (EP) antigens, the reactivity of which could be predicted by that LSA antigen. High reactivity concordance was found between LSA and EP antigens. More HLA antigens were covered by EP antigens in the population than LSA antigens. CPRA values at the EP level were higher than at the allele level and lower than at the antigen level. The EP antigens facilitated UA determination for non-LSA antigens and avoided acute rejection; (4) UA determination using EP antigens can lead to more accurate assessment of sensitization, enabling a high probability of compatible organs and a low risk of adverse outcomes.

Evaluation of the Iranian panel reactive antibody calculator and potential usefulness: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are several cPRA websites based on large enough samples in Eurotransplant, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), and the Canadian Transplant Registry (CTR). On the other hand, those calculators can differ based on the ethnicity to which they are applied. We developed the Iranian PRA calculator and compared it with UNOS and CTR calculators. METHODS: The allele and haplotype frequencies of the Iranian donor pool were estimated using the HLA typing of 523 deceased Iranian kidney donors. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network formula was used to generate cPRA (cPRA frequency). We also used a computer script to compare the undesirable antigens of patients with the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) phenotype of donors (cPRA filtering). A total of 100 anti-HLA antibody profiles were determined in 100 sensitized individuals on the waiting list, and cPRA was estimated using various PRA calculators. RESULTS: Variable allelic frequencies were obtained from population heterogeneity in each calculator's donor panel. However, no significant changes in cPRA were identified between the Iranian calculator, UNOS, and the Canadian online calculators. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient of .98 showed that cPRA (freq) and cPRA (filter) values had almost perfect agreement. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The cPRA values from the Iranian calculator are comparable to those from UNOS and CTR calculators. The donor filtering method was more useful because of factors like cost and flexibility. It also makes it easier to update cPRA on a regular basis.

Principles of Virtual Crossmatch Testing for Kidney Transplantation.

Human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) are the primary determinants of alloimmunity. A crossmatch test is a test that determines the immunologic risk of a recipient with a potential donor by ensuring that there are no transplant-relevant circulating antibodies in the recipient directed against donor antigens. Physical crossmatch (PXM) tests, such as complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDCXM) and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM), require mixing of patient serum and donor cells, are labor intensive, and are logistically challenging. Virtual crossmatch (VXM) test assesses immunologic compatibility between recipient and potential donor by analyzing the results of 2 independently done physical laboratory tests-patient anti-HLA antibody and donor HLA typing. The goal of VXM is pretransplant risk stratification-though there is no consensus on whether such risk assessment involves predicting the PXM result or the posttransplant outcome. Although the concept of VXM is not new, the advent of solid-phase assays for detecting circulating antibodies in the recipient directed against individual HLA and DNA-based methods for typing donor HLA specificities at a higher resolution makes the routine use of VXM a reality. Accordingly, VXM may be applied at different scenarios-both for sensitized and nonsensitized patients. Implementation of VXM-based approach has resulted in statistically significant reduction in cold ischemia time without an increase in hyperacute rejection episodes. Though there are considerable challenges, VXM is expected to be used more often in the future, depending on the transplant center's tolerance of immunologic risk.

US deceased kidney transplantation: Estimated GFR, donor age and KDPI association with graft survival.

BACKGROUND: Despite a significant shortage of kidneys for transplantation in the US, kidneys from older deceased donors are infrequently transplanted. This is primarily over concern of graft quality and transplant durability. METHODS: The US national transplant database (2000-2018) was assessed for deceased donor kidney transplant patient and graft survival, graft durability and stratified by donor age (<65 years>), Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and estimated glomerual filtration rate (GFR) one year post-transplantation (eGFR-1) were calculated. FINDINGS: Recipients of kidneys transplanted from deceased donors >65 years had a lower eGFR-1, (median 39 ml/min) than recipients of younger donor kidneys (median 54 ml/min). However, death-censored graft survival, stratified by eGFR-1, demonstrated similar survival, irrespective of donor age or KDPI. The durability of kidney survival decreases as the achieved eGFR-1 declines. KDPI has a poor association with eGFR-1 and lesser for graft durability. While recipients of kidneys > 65 years had a higher one year mortality than younger kidney recipients, recipients of kidneys > 65 years and an eGFR-1 <30 ml/min, had a lower survival than an untransplanted waitlist cohort (p<0.001). INTERPRETATION: The durability of kidney graft survival after transplantation was associated with the amount of kidney function gained through the transplant (eGFR-1) and the rate of graft loss (return to dialysis) was not significantly associated with donor age. 24.9% of recipients of older donor kidneys failed to achieve sufficient eGFR-1 providing a transplant survival benefit. While there is significant benefit from transplanting older kidneys, better decision-making tools are required to avoid transplanting kidneys that provide insufficient renal function. FUNDING: None.

Impact of human leukocyte antigen and calculated panel reactive antibody on BK viremia in kidney transplant recipients: A single-center experience and literature review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to investigate the effect of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) on BK virus activation as evidenced by BK viremia (BKV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: At our institution, 649 kidney transplant patients were screened for BKV from 2009 to 2017. Patients were considered to have BKV if they had >10 000 copies/mL of BK DNA in their blood. Donor and recipient HLA and cPRA, demographic, clinical and laboratory data, as well as immunosuppressive medications were collected. RESULTS: We identified 122 BK positive and 527 BK negative patients. Only 25% of the patients had cPRA of 20% or more, and 64% had more than three HLA-A, -B, and -DR mismatches. In both univariate and multivariate analyses, male gender, age, and maintenance of steroid therapy significantly increased the risk of BKV (P = 0.005, 0.005 and <0.001, respectively). The degree of cPRA and the individual HLA allele and HLA allele matching did not significantly affect BKV. CONCLUSION: Neither the degree of HLA mismatching nor cPRA appears to affect BKV. Moreover, no specific HLA allele, HLA allele matching, or cPRA were associated with BKV.

Impact of organ prioritization for immunologic sensitization and waiting times for heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian status 4S category prioritizes highly sensitized patients with a calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) > 80% awaiting heart transplantation. We examined the effect of sensitization and status 4S and developed a predictive model to estimate waiting time in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients listed for heart transplant at the Ottawa Heart Institute and Toronto General Hospital (Ontario, Canada). We evaluated the association of CPRA and priority listing status on waiting time and post-transplant outcomes. Waiting time risk factor analysis was performed using a multivariable parametric accelerated failure time model with a Weibull distribution. RESULTS: Of 394 patients listed (75% male, 51 ± 12 years), 291 (74%) received a transplant and 33 (8%) died waiting. The cumulative incidence of transplant decreased across higher CPRA groups but was similar for moderately and highly sensitized groups: 67%, 70%, 50%, and 40% at 12 months for CPRA 0%, 1% to 50%, 51% to 80%, and > 80%, respectively (p = 0.020). Status 4S patients experienced longer waiting times compared with other high priority status 3.5 and 4 and had increased risk of death on the waiting list (p = 0.014). Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (interquartile range, 1.2-4.1), rejection occurred in 64 sensitized patients (24%) compared with 24 non-sensitized patients (9%; p = 0.019), but there was no difference in survival, allograft dysfunction, or cardiac allograft vasculopathy. A model predicting transplant waiting time, including CPRA, blood group, priority listing status, age, and weight, was developed and showed adequate discrimination and calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting time to heart transplant is increased for highly and moderately sensitized patients, suggesting the need to reevaluate the CPRA > 80% threshold for status 4S prioritization in Canada. Extended waiting times, despite 4S prioritization, supports consideration of additional factors to CPRA in ensuring equitable organ access for sensitized patients.

Significance of the intraindividual variability of HLA IgG antibodies in renal disease patients observed with different beadsets monitored with two different secondary antibodies on a Luminex platform.

The accurate measurement of anti-HLA alloantibodies in transplant candidates is required for determining the degree of sensitization and for the listing of unacceptable antigens for organ allocation. Both the configuration of the HLA molecules coated on the beads and the nature of detection antibodies may impede assessment of the presence and strength of anti-HLA IgG- with the Luminex single-antigen-bead assay. Sera antibodies of the end-stage renal disease patients were compared using LIFECODES (LC) and LABScreen (LS) beadsets monitored with polyclonal-Fab (IgHPolyFab) and monoclonal-IgG (FcMonoIgG) second antibodies. Positive results at mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) > 500 (at serum dilution 1/10) were used to calculate panel reactive antibody (cPRA) levels. LS-beadsets are coated with monomeric variants in addition to intact HLA antigens with or without peptides, while LC-beadsets are devoid of monomeric variants and with lesser levels of peptide-free heterodimers. Consequently, IgG antibodies against both classes of HLA were reactive to more antigens with LS than with LC-beadsets. For both classes, MFIs were also frequently higher with LS than with LC. For HLA-I, MFIs were higher with IgHPolyFab than with FcMonoIgG with the exception of sera with MFIs > 5000 where they were comparable. For HLA-II, the reverse occurred, with significantly higher levels with FcMonoIgG regardless of the beadsets. The intraindividual variability observed between beadsets with two detection antibodies elucidates that antigens found as acceptable with one beadset may end up unacceptable with the other beadsets, with the possibility of denying potentially compatible transplants to candidates.

A simplified method of calculating cPRA for kidney allocation application in Hong Kong: a retrospective study.

Calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) represents possibility of encountering an incompatible donor for organ transplant candidates and has gradually replaced traditional PRA as a measurement of sensitization level. We tested two cPRA calculation methods on a cohort of renal candidate (n = 613). HLA typing of 563 Chinese deceased renal donors was used to estimate allele and haplotype frequencies of Hong Kong donor pool. The OPTN formula was adopted to generate cPRA (cPRA (freq)). We also incorporated a computer script to compare unacceptable antigens of patients against HLA phenotype of donors. The cPRA based on historical donor filtering was the percentage of filter out count over total number of donors (cPRA (filter)). Values of cPRA (freq) and cPRA (filter) showed almost perfect agreement with Lin's correlation coefficient equal to 1.000. SD of bias was 0.6 cPRA point. Limit of agreement was 0.9 to -1.5 points difference. Furthermore, the poor agreement between our in-house cPRA and values from other online calculators indicated the necessity to use local population data for accurate cPRA calculation. Built-in donor filtering method was more practicable for Hong Kong due to factors such as cost and flexibility. An on-going donor pool can reflect population allele frequencies and permits efficient periodic update of cPRA.

Calculated panel-reactive antibody predicts outcomes on the heart transplant waiting list.

BACKGROUND: Sensitized heart transplant candidates spend more time and have higher mortality on the waiting list. Although the calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) value is used to assign allocation priority to kidney transplant candidates in the United States, the relationship between CPRA and outcomes on the heart transplant waiting list is unknown. METHODS: A data set of patients listed for heart transplant with unacceptable human leukocyte antigens (HLA) entered was obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. The study cohort was composed of 3,855 adult candidates listed for heart transplant between 2006 and 2013 with active waiting time. The cohort was divided into 5 groups by increasing CPRA. Outcomes were assessed using competing risks and sub-hazard regression analyses. RESULTS: In each group of successively higher CPRA, the percentage of candidates who received a transplant decreased, whereas the percentage of those who were still waiting for a transplant increased, as did the percentage of those removed from the waiting list or had died. The group of candidates with a CPRA >80% displayed a markedly decreased incidence of transplantation (hazard ratio 0.37) and an increased risk of removal from the waiting list or death (hazard ratio 2.18) as compared to those with CPRA of ≤10%. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitized heart transplant candidates are at high risk of adverse outcomes on the heart transplant waiting list. Clinicians should strive to minimize the CPRA by maximizing specificity in the selection of HLA antigens to exclude. The optimal clinical approach for candidates with high CPRA requires further study.

Calculated panel reactive antibody with decimals: A refined metric of access to transplantation for highly sensitized candidates.

The use of the calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) value and the implementation of allocation points for sensitized candidates by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) have improved access to kidney transplantation for highly sensitized candidates (98% CPRA and above). Despite this, a large population of highly sensitized candidates remain awaiting transplantation. To better define this population, we propose the use of two refinements of the standard UNOS CPRA, the CPRA with decimals or CPRAd, and the likelihood of a compatible donor (LCD). These refined metrics of the standard UNOS CPRA will allow transplant programs to describe their patients' access to transplantation with increased granularity and will help in decisions regarding the use of desensitization.

Casting a smaller net into a bigger donor pool: A single center's experience with the new kidney allocation system.

The new kidney allocation system (KAS) provides additional allocation points for candidates with broad HLA sensitization in an effort to increase transplant rates for this underserved population. Following the implementation of KAS, our center lowered the HLA antibody threshold for listing unacceptable antigens from a cytotoxicity crossmatch level to a flow cytometric crossmatch level increasing Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody (CPRA) values and allocation points, yet restricting acceptable donor HLA phenotypes. As a result, many sensitized candidates were transitioned from 50% to 98% CPRA categories into the 99% CPRA regional share and 100% CPRA national share categories. Exposure to these larger donor pools significantly increased transplantation with compatible donors for 100% CPRA candidates, but regional sharing was not sufficient to increase transplantation rates for our 99% CPRA candidates. Competition within the 100% CPRA cohort identified inequities for 99.99-100.0% CPRA candidates and highlighted the continued need for desensitization therapies to reduce immunological barriers and provide transplant opportunities for the most highly sensitized candidates.

Peri-operative third party red blood cell transfusion in renal transplantation and the risk of antibody-mediated rejection and graft loss.

Historic red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) may induce anti-HLA antibody which, if donor specific (DSA), is associated with increased antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Whether post-operative RBCT influences this risk is unknown. We examined the RBCT history in 258 renal transplant recipients stratified according to prevalent recipient HLA antibody (DSA, Non-DSA or No Antibody). AMR occurred more frequently in patients who received RBCT both pre and post transplant compared with all other groups (Pre+Post-RBCT 21%, Pre-RBCT 4%, Post-RBCT 6%, No-RBCT 6%, HR 4.1 p=0.004). In the 63 patients who received Pre+Post-RBCT, 65% (13/20) with DSA developed AMR compared with 0/6 in the Non-DSA group and 2/37 (5%) in the No-Antibody group (HR 13.9 p<0.001). In patients who received No-RBCT, Pre-RBCT or Post-RBCT there was no difference in AMR between patients with DSA, Non-DSA or No-Antibody. Graft loss was independently associated with Pre+Post-RBCT (HR 6.5, p=0.001) AMR (HR 23.9 p<0.001) and Non-AMR (6.0 p=0.003) after adjusting for DSA and delayed graft function. Re-exposure to RBCT at the time of transplant is associated with increased AMR only in patients with preformed DSA, suggesting that RBCT provides additional allostimulation. Patients receiving Pre+Post-RBCT also had an increased risk of graft loss independently of AMR or DSA. Both pre and post procedural RBCT in renal transplantation is associated with modification of immunological risk and warrants additional study.

Sensitization from transfusion in patients awaiting primary kidney transplant.

BACKGROUND: Sensitization to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) from red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is poorly quantified and is based on outdated, insensitive methods. The objective was to evaluate the effect of transfusion on the breadth, magnitude and specificity of HLA antibody formation using sensitive and specific methods. METHODS: Transfusion, demographic and clinical data from the US Renal Data System were obtained for patients on dialysis awaiting primary kidney transplant who had ≥ 2 HLA antibody measurements using the Luminex single-antigen bead assay. One cohort included patients with a transfusion (n = 50) between two antibody measurements matched with up to four nontransfused patients (n = 155) by age, sex, race and vintage (time on dialysis). A second crossover cohort (n = 25) included patients with multiple antibody measurements before and after transfusion. We studied changes in HLA antibody mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) and calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA). RESULTS: In the matched cohort, 10 of 50 (20%) transfused versus 6 of 155 (4%) nontransfused patients had a ≥ 10 HLA antibodies increase of >3000 MFI (P = 0.0006); 6 of 50 (12%) transfused patients had a ≥ 30 antibodies increase (P = 0.0007). In the crossover cohort, the number of HLA antibodies increasing >1000 and >3000 MFI was higher in the transfused versus the control period, P = 0.03 and P = 0.008, respectively. Using a ≥ 3000 MFI threshold, cPRA significantly increased in both matched (P = 0.01) and crossover (P = 0.002) transfused patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among prospective primary kidney transplant recipients, RBC transfusion results in clinically significant increases in HLA antibody strength and breadth, which adversely affect the opportunity for future transplant.

Pre-transplant donor specific anti-HLA antibody is associated with antibody-mediated rejection, progressive graft dysfunction and patient death.

BACKGROUND: The long term effect of donor specific antibodies (DSA) detected by Luminex Single Antigen Bead (SAB) assay in the absence of a positive complement-dependant cytotoxicity (CDC) crossmatch is unclear. DSA at the time of transplant were determined retrospectively in 258 renal transplant recipients from 2003 to 2007 and their relationship with rejection and graft function prospectively evaluated. After a median of 5.6 years follow-up 9% of patients had antibody mediated rejection (AMR) (DSA 11/37 (30%), DSA-Neg 13/221 (6%), HR 6.6, p<0.001). Patients with anti-HLA class II (HR 6.1) or both class I+II (HR 10.1) DSA had the greatest risk for AMR. The Mean Fluorescent Intensity (MFI) of the DSA was significantly higher in patients with AMR than those with no rejection (p=0.006). Moreover, the strength of the antibody was shown to be important, with the risk of AMR significantly greater in those with DSA >8000 MFI than those with DSA <8000 MFI (HR 23, p<0.001). eGFR progressively declined in patients with DSA but was stable in those without DSA (35.7 ± 20.4 mls/min vs 48.5 ± 22.7) and composite patient and graft survival was significantly worse in those with class II (HR 2.9) or both class I+II (HR 3.7) but not class I DSA. Class II DSA alone, or in combination with class I DSA had the strongest association with graft loss and patient death. Patients with DSA not only have increased rates of acute AMR, but also chronic graft dysfunction, graft loss and death. Antibody burden quantified by SAB assay may identify patients at highest immunological risk and therefore influence patient management and improve long-term patient outcome.

Application of calculated panel reactive antibody using HLA frequencies in Koreans.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of the Luminex panel reactive antibody (PRA)-single antigen (SA) assay has increased the detection rates of unacceptable antigens in sensitized patients; the calculated PRA (CPRA) level represents the percentage of actual organ donors that express 1 or more of these unacceptable antigens. We developed a CPRA calculator based on the HLA frequencies in Koreans to measure sensitization levels in Korean patients. METHODS: To develop the calculator, we obtained the HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DR phenotypes of 1,622 Koreans, and compared these with previously reported frequencies in Koreans. Sera from patients awaiting kidney transplantation were tested for HLA antibodies by Luminex PRA-screen, PRA-identification (ID), and PRA-SA assays. The measured %PRA from the PRA-screen (N=55) and PRA-ID (N=71) were compared to the %CPRA for the unacceptable antigens obtained from PRA-SA. RESULTS: Phenotype frequencies used for the CPRA calculator agreed with previously reported data. The concordance rates among the 3 PRA methods for the detection of class I and class II antibodies were 76.1-81.8% (kappa, 0.519-0.636) and 72.7-83.6% (0.463-0.650), respectively. For the detection of broadly sensitized sera (>50% or >80%), the concordance rates were over 80%. In sera with 80-100% CPRA, 91.7% and 94.4% of the samples had concordant results (80-100% PRA) in the PRA-screen and PRA-ID assay, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although further clinical studies are required to confirm the benefits of CPRA values, adoption of CPRA analysis based on HLA frequencies in Koreans may be useful for sensitization measurements and organ-allocation algorithms.