De novo donor-specific antibodies in belatacept-treated vs cyclosporine-treated kidney-transplant recipients: Post hoc analyses of the randomized phase III BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT studies.

Donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) are associated with an increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection and graft failure. In BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT, kidney-transplant recipients were randomized to receive belatacept more intense (MI)-based, belatacept less intense (LI)-based, or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression for up to 7 years (84 months). The presence/absence of HLA-specific antibodies was determined at baseline, at months 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 84, and at the time of clinically suspected episodes of acute rejection, using solid-phase flow-cytometry screening. Samples from anti-HLA-positive patients were further tested with a single-antigen bead assay to determine antibody specificities, presence/absence of DSAs, and mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of any DSAs present. In BENEFIT, de novo DSAs developed in 1.4%, 3.5%, and 12.1% of belatacept MI-treated, belatacept LI-treated, and cyclosporine-treated patients, respectively. The corresponding values in BENEFIT-EXT were 3.8%, 1.1%, and 11.2%. Per Kaplan-Meier analysis, de novo DSA incidence was significantly lower in belatacept-treated vs cyclosporine-treated patients over 7 years in both studies (P < .01). In patients who developed de novo DSAs, belatacept-based immunosuppression was associated with numerically lower MFI vs cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. Although derived post hoc, these data suggest that belatacept-based immunosuppression suppresses de novo DSA development more effectively than cyclosporine-based immunosuppression.

Posttransplant reduction in preexisting donor-specific antibody levels after belatacept- versus cyclosporine-based immunosuppression: Post hoc analyses of BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT.

BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT were phase III studies of cytotoxic T-cell crossmatch-negative kidney transplant recipients randomized to belatacept more intense (MI)-based, belatacept less intense (LI)-based, or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. Following study completion, presence/absence of HLA-specific antibodies was determined centrally via solid-phase flow cytometry screening. Stored sera from anti-HLA-positive patients were further tested with a single-antigen bead assay to determine antibody specificities, presence/absence of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of any DSAs present. The effect of belatacept-based and cyclosporine-based immunosuppression on MFI was explored post hoc in patients with preexisting DSAs enrolled to BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT. In BENEFIT, preexisting DSAs were detected in 4.6%, 4.9%, and 6.3% of belatacept MI-treated, belatacept LI-treated, and cyclosporine-treated patients, respectively. The corresponding values in BENEFIT-EXT were 6.0%, 5.7%, and 9.2%. In both studies, most preexisting DSAs were of class I specificity. Over the first 24 months posttransplant, a greater proportion of preexisting DSAs in belatacept-treated versus cyclosporine-treated patients exhibited decreases or no change in MFI. MFI decline was more apparent with belatacept MI-based versus belatacept LI-based immunosuppression in both studies and more pronounced in BENEFIT-EXT versus BENEFIT. Although derived post hoc, these data suggest that belatacept-based immunosuppression decreases preexisting DSAs more effectively than cyclosporine-based immunosuppression.

The Road to HLA Antibody Evaluation: Do Not Rely on MFI.

Technological advances in HLA laboratory testing undoubtedly improved the sensitivity and specificity of HLA antibody assessment but not without introducing a set of challenges regarding data interpretation. In particular, the introduction of solid-phase single-antigen bead (SAB) antibody assessment brought the belief that mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was a quantifiable value. As such, MFI levels heavily influenced HLA antibody reporting, monitoring, and clinical practice. However, given that SAB testing was neither intended for nor approved to be quantifiable, is the use of MFI in current clinical and laboratory practice valid? What, if anything, does this numerical value actually reveal about the pathogenic potential of the antibody? What are the pitfalls and caveats associated with reporting MFI? Herein, we travel the road to HLA antibody assessment and explore the reliability of MFI values to make clinical decisions.

HLA compatibility assessment and management of highly sensitized patients under the new kidney allocation system (KAS): A 2016 status report from twelve HLA laboratories across the U.S.

Twelve HLA laboratories were surveyed to assess the methods and operational issues involved to define highly sensitized patients and to assess HLA compatibility under the new kidney allocation system (KAS) in the U.S. All laboratories used single antigen bead assays both pre- and post-KAS to define both broad and allele-specific HLA antibodies. The methods and threshold used to list HLA unacceptable antigens in UNet for virtual crossmatch (vXM) and the criteria used for determining HLA compatibility varied among laboratories. Laboratories reported several limitations of the current assays including the accuracy of quantifiable antibody fluorescence values, inadequate coverage of common alleles on the bead panels, and challenges in calibrating the vXM. The new KAS has resulted in a significant surge of deceased donor organ offers requiring vXM evaluation under tight time constraints. In the post-KAS period, eight of twelve laboratories (67%) indicated that their center did not proceed to transplant based on vXM without a prospective lymphocyte crossmatch. In conclusion, HLA laboratories play a critical role in deceased donor allocation for highly sensitized patients under the new KAS. Significant opportunities exist to improve the methods used in the assessment of HLA compatibility to safely transplant highly sensitized patients.

Apolipoprotein L1 gene variants in deceased organ donors are associated with renal allograft failure.

Apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) nephropathy variants in African American deceased kidney donors were associated with shorter renal allograft survival in a prior single-center report. APOL1 G1 and G2 variants were genotyped in newly accrued DNA samples from African American deceased donors of kidneys recovered and/or transplanted in Alabama and North Carolina. APOL1 genotypes and allograft outcomes in subsequent transplants from 55 U.S. centers were linked, adjusting for age, sex and race/ethnicity of recipients, HLA match, cold ischemia time, panel reactive antibody levels, and donor type. For 221 transplantations from kidneys recovered in Alabama, there was a statistical trend toward shorter allograft survival in recipients of two-APOL1-nephropathy-variant kidneys (hazard ratio [HR] 2.71; p = 0.06). For all 675 kidneys transplanted from donors at both centers, APOL1 genotype (HR 2.26; p = 0.001) and African American recipient race/ethnicity (HR 1.60; p = 0.03) were associated with allograft failure. Kidneys from African American deceased donors with two APOL1 nephropathy variants reproducibly associate with higher risk for allograft failure after transplantation. These findings warrant consideration of rapidly genotyping deceased African American kidney donors for APOL1 risk variants at organ recovery and incorporation of results into allocation and informed-consent processes.

Should HLA mismatch acceptability for sensitized transplant candidates be determined at the high-resolution rather than the antigen level?

Defining HLA mismatch acceptability of organ transplant donors for sensitized recipients has traditionally been based on serologically defined HLA antigens. Now, however, it is well accepted that HLA antibodies specifically recognize a wide range of epitopes present on HLA antigens and that molecularly defined high resolution alleles corresponding to the same low resolution antigen can possess different epitope repertoires. Hence, determination of HLA compatibility at the allele level represents a more accurate approach to identify suitable donors for sensitized patients. This approach would offer opportunities for increased transplant rates and improved long term graft survivals.

HLA antibody detection with solid phase assays: great expectations or expectations too great?

Alloantibodies directed against HLA antigens, are a barrier to long-term solid organ allograft survival. The clinical impact of preformed, donor-directed HLA alloantibodies range from acceptable risk to unequivocal contraindication for organ transplantation. HLA antibodies are key factors that limit patient access to donor organs. Serological methods were once the only approach to identify HLA antigens and antibodies. Limitations in these technologies led to the development of solid phase approaches. In the early 1990s, the development of the polymerase chain reaction enabled DNA-based HLA antigen testing to be performed. By the mid-1990s, microparticle-based technology that utilized flow cytometry for analysis was developed to detect both classes I and II HLA antibodies. These methodologies revolutionized clinical histocompatibility testing. The strengths and weaknesses of these assays are described in detail in this review.

Solid-phase assays for the detection of alloantibody against human leukocyte antigens: panacea or Pandora?

Serological assessments of antibodies directed against human leucocyte antigens (HLA) formed the basis of early histocompatibility testing (Patel & Terasaki, 1969 N Engl J Med, 280, 735). However, over the past decade, significant advances in HLA antibody detection technologies have emerged. The development and implementation of solid-phase assays has led to safer and more efficient allocation of organs by effectively distinguishing HLA from non-HLA antibodies. Although solid-phase assays are not standardized, they are widely accepted as the new 'gold standard'. However, this technology is not without its challenges. This review is intended to provide a better understanding of solid-phase HLA antibody testing and will focus on important caveats associated with this evolving technology. Examples of the limitations of the technology as well as common data misinterpretations will be shown. Both of which could pose potential harm to transplant recipients (Tait et al., Transplantation, 95, 19).

The role of donor-specific HLA alloantibodies in liver transplantation.

The impact of donor-specific HLA alloantibodies (DSA) on short- and long-term liver transplant outcome is not clearly defined. While it is clear that not all levels of allosensitization produce overt clinical injury, and that liver allografts possess some degree of alloantibody resistance, alloantibody-mediated adverse consequences are increasingly being recognized. To better define the current state of this topic, we assembled experts to provide insights, explore controversies and develop recommendations for future research on the consequences of DSA in liver transplantation. This article summarizes the proceedings of this inaugural meeting. Several insights emerged. Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), although rarely diagnosed, is increasingly understood to overlap with T cell-mediated rejection. Isolated liver allograft recipients are at increased risk of early allograft immunologic injury when preformed DSA are high titer and persist posttransplantation. Persons who undergo simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation are at risk of renal AMR when Class II DSA persist posttransplantation. Other under-appreciated DSA associations include ductopenia and fibrosis, plasma cell hepatitis, biliary strictures and accelerated fibrosis associated with recurrent liver disease. Standardized DSA testing and diagnostic criteria for both acute and chronic AMR are needed to distil existing associations into etiological processes in order to develop responsive therapeutic strategies.

Class II alloantibody and mortality in simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation.

Hyperacute kidney rejection is unusual in crossmatch positive recipients of simultaneous liver-kidney transplants (SLKT). However, recent data suggest that these patients remain at risk for antibody-mediated kidney rejection. To further investigate the risk associated with donor-specific alloantibodies (DSA) in SLKT, we studied 86 consecutive SLKT patients with an available pre-SLKT serum sample. Serum samples were analyzed in a blinded fashion for HLA DSA using single antigen beads (median florescence intensity≥2,000=positive). Post-SLKT samples were analyzed when available (76%). Thirty patients had preformed DSA, and nine developed de novo DSA. Preformed class I DSA did not change the risk of rejection, patient or allograft survival. In contrast, preformed class II DSA was associated with a markedly increased risk of renal antibody mediated rejection (AMR) (p=0.006), liver allograft rejection (p=0.002), patient death (p=0.02), liver allograft loss (p=0.02) and renal allograft loss (p=0.045). Multivariable modeling showed class II DSA (preformed or de novo) to be an independent predictor of patient death (HR=2.2; p=0.043) and liver allograft loss (HR=2.2; p=0.044). These data warrant reconsideration of the approach to DSA in SLKT.

Revisiting traditional risk factors for rejection and graft loss after kidney transplantation.

Single-antigen bead (SAB) testing permits reassessment of immunologic risk for kidney transplantation. Traditionally, high panel reactive antibody (PRA), retransplant and deceased donor (DD) grafts have been associated with increased risk. We hypothesized that this risk was likely mediated by (unrecognized) donor-specific antibody (DSA). We grouped 587 kidney transplants using clinical history and single-antigen bead (SAB) testing of day of transplant serum as (1) unsensitized; PRA = 0 (n = 178), (2) third-party sensitized; no DSA (n = 363) or (3) donor sensitized; with DSA (n = 46), and studied rejection rates, death-censored graft survival (DCGS) and risk factors for rejection. Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) rates were increased with DSA (p < 0.0001), but not with panel reactive antibody (PRA) in the absence of DSA. Cell-mediated rejection (CMR) rates were increased with DSA (p < 0.005); with a trend to increased rates when PRA>0 in the absence of DSA (p = 0.08). Multivariate analyses showed risk factors for AMR were DSA, worse HLA matching, and female gender; for CMR: DSA, PRA>0 and worse HLA matching. AMR and CMR were associated with decreased DCGS. The presence of DSA is an important predictor of rejection risk, in contrast to traditional risk factors. Further development of immunosuppressive protocols will be facilitated by stratification of rejection risk by donor sensitization.

Antibody-mediated rejection--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The presence of preformed, donor-specific alloantibodies inpatients undergoing renal transplantation is associated with a high risk of hyperacute and acute antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), and often limits potential recipients' access to organs from living and deceased donors. Over the last decade, understanding of ABMR has improved markedly and given rise to numerous, diverse strategies for the transplantation of allosensitized recipients. Antibody desensitization programs have been developed to allow renal transplant recipients with a willing but antibody-incompatible living donor to undergo successful transplantation, whereas kidney paired exchange schemes circumvent the antibody incompatibility altogether by finding suitable pairs to donors and recipients. Recognizing the complexity of ABMR and the recent developments that have occurred in this important clinical research field, the Roche Organ Transplantation Research Foundation (ROTRF) organized a symposium during the XXIII Congress of The Transplantation Society in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss current understanding in ABMR and ways to prevent it. This Meeting Report summarizes the presentations of the symposium, which addressed key areas that included the interactions between alloantibodies and the complement system in mediating graft injury, technological advancements for assessing antibody-mediated immune responses to HLA antigens, and the potential benefits and challenges of desensitization and kidney paired donation schemes.

Donor-directed MHC class I antibody is preferentially cleared from sensitized recipients of combined liver/kidney transplants.

For patients with chronic renal and liver diseases, simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation (SLKT) is the best therapeutic option. The role of a pretransplant donor-specific antibody (DSA) in SLKT is unclear. We report the results of a retrospective review from 7/08 to 10/09 of SLKT at our institution. Monitoring of DSA was performed using single antigen bead assay. Between 7/08 and 10/09, there were six SLKT who had preformed DSA and positive XM (four class I and II DSA, one class I DSA only, one class II only). One-year patient and renal graft survival was 83%. Death-censored liver allograft survival was 100%. Acute humoral rejection (AHR) of the kidney occurred in 66% (three with both class I and II DSA and one with only class II DSA) of patients. In those with AHR, class I antibodies were rapidly cleared (p < 0.01) while class II antibodies persisted (p = 0.25). All patients who had humoral rejection of their kidney had preformed anticlass II antibodies. Liver allografts may not be fully protective of the renal allograft, especially with pre-existing MHC class II DSA. Long-term and careful follow-up will be critical to determine the impact of DSA on both allografts.