i-IFTA and chronic active T cell-mediated rejection: A tale of 2 (DeKAF) cohorts.

Inflammation in areas of fibrosis (i-IFTA) in posttransplant biopsies is part of the diagnostic criteria for chronic active TCMR (CA TCMR -- i-IFTA ≥ 2, ti ≥ 2, t ≥ 2). We evaluated i-IFTA and CA TCMR in the DeKAF indication biopsy cohorts: prospective (n = 585, mean time to biopsy = 1.7 years); cross-sectional (n = 458, mean time to biopsy = 7.8 years). Grouped by i-IFTA scores, the 3-year postbiopsy DC-GS is similar across cohorts. Although a previous acute rejection episode (AR) was more common in those with i-IFTA on biopsy, the majority of those with i-IFTA had not had previous AR. There was no association between type of previous AR (AMR, TCMR) and presence of i-IFTA. In both cohorts, i-IFTA was associated with markers of both cellular (increased Banff i, t, ti) and humoral (increased g, ptc, C4d, DSA) activity. Biopsies with i-IFTA = 1 and i-IFTA ≥ 2 with concurrent t ≥ 2 and ti ≥ 2 had similar DC-GS. These results suggest that (a) i-IFTA≥1 should be considered a threshold for diagnoses incorporating i-IFTA, ti, and t; (b) given that i-IFTA ≥ 2,t ≥ 2, ti ≥ 2 can occur in the absence of preceding TCMR and that the component histologic scores (i-IFTA,t,ti) each indicate an acute change (albeit i-IFTA on the nonspecific background of IFTA), the diagnostic category "CA TCMR" should be reconsidered.

Long-term follow-up of the DeKAF cross-sectional cohort study.

The DeKAF study was developed to better understand the causes of late allograft loss. Preliminary findings from the DeKAF cross-sectional cohort (with follow-up < 20 months) have been published. Herein, we present long-term outcomes in those recipients (mean follow-up ± SD, 6.6 ± 0.7 years). Eligibility included being transplanted prior to October 1, 2005; serum creatinine ≤ 2.0 mg/dL on January 1, 2006; and subsequently developing new-onset graft dysfunction leading to a biopsy. Mean time from transplant to biopsy was 7.5 ± 6.1 years. Histologic findings and DSA were studied in relation to postbiopsy outcomes. Long-term follow-up confirms and expands the preliminary results of each of 3 studies: (1) increasing inflammation in area of atrophy (irrespective of inflammation in nonscarred areas [Banff i]) was associated with increasingly worse postbiopsy death-censored graft survival; (2) hierarchical analysis based on Banff scores defined clusters (entities) that differed in long-term death-censored graft survival; and (3) C4d-/DSA- recipients had significantly better (and C4d+/DSA+ worse) death-censored graft survival than other groups. C4d+/DSA- and C4d-/DSA+ had similar intermediate death-censored graft survival. Clinical and histologic findings at the time of new-onset graft dysfunction define high- vs low-risk groups for long-term death-censored graft survival, even years posttransplant. These findings can help differentiate groups for potential intervention studies.

Clinical utility of complement-dependent C3d assay in kidney recipients presenting with late allograft dysfunction.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a complement-dependent C3d assay to risk stratify donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in a multicenter cohort of kidney recipients presenting with new-onset clinical dysfunction. A total of 106 subjects with evidence of DSA at a mean period of 5.3 ± 5.0 years posttransplant underwent testing using C3d reagents. C3d positivity was strongly associated with both the peak and sum IgG DSA MFI, with 98.3% (n = 57/58) of strongly reactive sera (peak MFI > 10 000) eliciting a positive signal. Patients with C3d+ DSA had a higher creatinine (P = .03), more significant graft fibrosis (P = .035), and a faster rate of graft loss posttest compared to those with C3d- DSA (P = .05). Subanalysis of patients with low-moderate level DSA confirmed the inferior outcome associated with C3d positivity. Despite the prognostic value of C3d as a stand-alone test, the assay did not provide independent risk prediction after incorporation of graft fibrosis in a multivariate model (P = .94). Overall, C3d offered limited discriminatory value for strong DSA with peak IgG MFI > 10 000 and in patients where histologic data is available, but its utilization may be considered in those with low-moderate level DSA and where an allograft biopsy is not accessible.

Outcomes of kidney transplantation from older living donors to older recipients.

BACKGROUND: More than half the newly wait-listed patients for kidney transplantation in 2005 were older than 50 years, and 13% were older than 65 years. As waiting times for a deceased donor kidney increase, these older candidates are disadvantaged by rapidly deteriorating health, often resulting in death or removal from the wait list before transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cohort study was conducted using data from the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All adult kidney-only transplantations performed in recipients 60 years and older from 1996 to 2005 were included. PREDICTOR: The recipient cohort was stratified into 4 groups based on donor source: older living donor (OLD: living donor age > 55 years), younger living donor (YLD: living donor age 55 years [OLD] and 5,873 were

New priorities: Analysis of the New Kidney Allocation System on UCLA patients transplanted from the deceased donor waitlist.

UNOS implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (New KAS) on December 4, 2014 with a primary goal of increasing equity to organ transplant for patients that were immunologically or socially disadvantaged by the previous allocation system (Previous KAS) that prioritized long wait times. We examined the effects of the New KAS on patients transplanted from the UCLA deceased donor waitlist during the first year and compared to the last year of the Previous KAS. The total number of deceased donor kidney transplants was increased in the New KAS as compared to the Previous KAS (178 vs 148). Transplant of regraft patients and of highly sensitized patients with cPRA⩾99% was significantly increased in the New KAS (New KAS vs Previous KAS, 29.8% vs 11.5%, p⩽0.0001, and 26.4% vs 2.7%, p⩽0.0001, respectively). In the New KAS, the percentage of patient's receiving allografts imported from outside our local area was also significantly increased (34.8% vs 15.5%, p<0.0001). In the New KAS, 59.7% and 48.3% of imported organs were allocated to very highly sensitized (⩾99% cPRA) or re-graft patients, respectively, as compared to 8.7% and 8.7% during the Previous KAS (p<0.001). Recipients and donors with age differences exceeding 15years were decreased in the New KAS as compared to the Previous KAS (36.5 vs 48.7%, p⩽0.032). There was a 40.1% reduction in transplant to patients in the 65+ age group in the New KAS (p⩽0.025). The percentage of patients transplanted with preformed donor specific antibody (DSA) was similar in the New as compared to the Previous KAS (19.7% vs 15.5%) and, patients were transplanted with a range of 1-3 preformed DSA of weak to moderate strength. Cold ischemic time was significantly increased over all organs, and in patients transplanted with preformed DSA during the New as compared to the Previous KAS (17.5 vs 19.1h and 17.2 vs 22.2, p<0.04 and p<0.03, respectively). Episodes of delayed graft function and the number of biopsies for cause were similar between the New and the Previous KAS. However, there were more events of biopsy proven antibody mediated rejection in patients transplanted since the start of the New KAS. The data show that the New KAS is working at the center level as designed to better age match recipients and donors and to increase transplantation of very highly sensitized patients through broader sharing.

Antibody-mediated rejection criteria - an addition to the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft rejection.

Antibody-mediated rejection (AbAR) is increasingly recognized in the renal allograft population, and successful therapeutic regimens have been developed to prevent and treat AbAR, enabling excellent outcomes even in patients highly sensitized to the donor prior to transplant. It has become critical to develop standardized criteria for the pathological diagnosis of AbAR. This article presents international consensus criteria for and classification of AbAR developed based on discussions held at the Sixth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in 2001. This classification represents a working formulation, to be revisited as additional data accumulate in this important area of renal transplantation.