A paired kidney analysis on the impact of pre-transplant anti-HLA antibodies on graft survival.

BACKGROUND: Pre-transplant donor-specific anti-human leucocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies (DSAs) are associated with impaired kidney graft survival while the clinical relevance of non-donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (nDSAs) is more controversial. The aim of the present paired kidney graft study was to compare the clinical relevance of DSAs and nDSAs. METHODS: To eliminate donor and era-dependent factors, a post hoc paired kidney graft analysis was performed as part of a Dutch multicentre study evaluating all transplantations between 1995 and 2005 with available pre-transplant serum samples. Anti-HLA antibodies were detected with a Luminex single-antigen bead assay. RESULTS: Among 3237 deceased donor transplantations, we identified 115 recipient pairs receiving a kidney from the same donor with one recipient being DSA positive and the other without anti-HLA antibodies. Patients with pre-transplant DSAs had a significantly lower 10-year death-censored graft survival (55% versus 82%, P=0.0001). We identified 192 pairs with one recipient as nDSA positive (against Class I and/or II) and the other without anti-HLA antibodies. For the patients with nDSAs against either Class I or II, graft survival did not significantly differ compared with patients without anti-HLA antibodies (74% versus 77%, P = 0.79). Only in patients with both nDSAs Class I and II was there a trend towards a lower graft survival (58%, P = 0.06). Lastly, in a small group of 42 recipient pairs, 10-year graft survival in recipients with DSAs was 49% compared with 68% in recipients with nDSAs (P=0.11). CONCLUSION: This paired kidney analysis confirms that the presence of pre-transplant DSAs in deceased donor transplantations is a risk marker for graft loss, whereas nDSAs in general are not associated with a lower graft survival. Subgroup analysis indicated that only in broadly sensitized patients with nDSAs against Class I and II, nDSAs may be a risk marker for graft loss in the long term.

Effect of initial immunosuppression on long-term kidney transplant outcome in immunological low-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effect of different immunosuppressive strategies on long-term kidney transplant outcomes. Moreover, as they were usually based on historical data, it was not possible to account for the presence of pretransplant donor-specific human-leukocyte antigen antibodies (DSA), a currently recognized risk marker for impaired graft survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate to what extent frequently used initial immunosuppressive therapies increase graft survival in immunological low-risk patients. METHODS: We performed an analysis on the PROCARE cohort, a Dutch multicentre study including all transplantations performed in the Netherlands between 1995 and 2005 with available pretransplant serum (n = 4724). All sera were assessed for the presence of DSA by a luminex single-antigen bead assay. Patients with a previous kidney transplantation, pretransplant DSA or receiving induction therapy were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Three regimes were used in over 200 patients: cyclosporine (CsA)/prednisolone (Pred) (n = 542), CsA/mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)/Pred (n = 857) and tacrolimus (TAC)/MMF/Pred (n = 811). Covariate-adjusted analysis revealed no significant differences in 10-year death-censored graft survival between patients on TAC/MMF/Pred therapy (79%) compared with patients on CsA/MMF/Pred (82%, P = 0.88) or CsA/Pred (79%, P = 0.21). However, 1-year rejection-free survival censored for death and failure unrelated to rejection was significantly higher for TAC/MMF/Pred (81%) when compared with CsA/MMF/Pred (67%, P < 0.0001) and CsA/Pred (64%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that in immunological low-risk patients excellent long-term kidney graft survival can be achieved irrespective of the type of initial immunosuppressive therapy (CsA or TAC; with or without MMF), despite differences in 1-year rejection-free survival.