Virtual crossmatching and epitope analysis in kidney transplantation: What the physician involved in kidney transplantation should know?

Solid-phase single antigen bead (SAB) assay for detection of anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies and high-resolution HLA typing have enabled tremendous progress in virtual crossmatch (VXM) technology in recent years. However, misinterpretation of the SAB assay may result in detrimental consequences after kidney transplantation. Meanwhile, epitope analysis could be an effective method to estimate immunizing eplets, which may provide ancillary information for better understanding of the SAB assay. To perform epitope analysis appropriately, it is necessary to understand the basic principles related to histocompatibility testing and the characteristics of the SAB assay. Therefore, knowledge of the properties and limitations of the SAB assay is critical. In this review, we aim to describe the fundamental concepts regarding immunobiological assessment, including HLA, anti-HLA antibodies, and SAB assay, and explain epitope analysis using examples.

Anti-Hla Donor-Specific Antibodies Are Associated to Infection and Not to the Engraftment Rate in Outpatient Haploidentical Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Background: Recipients of a related haploidentical stem cell transplant (haplo-SCT) can have preformed antibodies to HLA donor's antigens. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the engraftment rate and major clinical associations of anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) at two mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) thresholds in recipients of an outpatient haplo-SCT. Methods: Seventy haplo-HCT recipients were analyzed. A virtual crossmatch was performed using the donor HLA typing and the recipient's anti-HLA DSA test results. Data for anti-HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DR were analyzed. Recipients with DSA ≥ 500 MFI were considered positive, and those with < 500 were considered negative; the same was adopted for MFI ≥ 1000. Results: Post-transplant infection was higher in recipients with DSA ≥ 500 MFI (84.6%, p = 0.041). First-year mortality was higher in DSA-positive patients ≥ 500 MFI, p = 0.004, and DSA ≥ 1000 MFI, p = 0.022, than in DSA-negative recipients. Graft failure in the first 100 days was not associated with DSA ≥ 500 or ≥ 1000 MFI. There was no difference in acute (a-GVHD) or chronic (c-GVHD) graft versus host disease between DSA-positive and negative patients. Conclusions: There was no association of anti-HLA DSA at MFI ≥ 500 and ≥ 1000 with graft failure, however, increased infection and 1st-year mortality were documented in related haplo-HCT at the MFI cutoffs studied.

Heart transplantation across preformed donor-specific antibody barriers using a perioperative desensitization protocol.

Heart transplantation across preformed donor-specific HLA-antibody barriers is associated with impaired short- and long-term survival. Therefore, in recipients with preformed anti-HLA antibodies, waiting for crossmatch-negative donors is standard practice. As an alternative strategy, recipients with preformed anti-HLA donor specific antibodies have been managed at our institutions with a perioperative desensitization regimen. A retrospective analysis was performed comparing heart transplant recipients with preformed donor-specific HLA-antibodies to recipients without donor-specific antibodies. Recipients with a positive virtual crossmatch received a perioperative desensitization protocol including tocilizumab intraoperatively, plasma exchange and rituximab followed by a six-month course of IgGAM. Among the 117 heart-transplanted patients, 19 (16%) patients underwent perioperative desensitization, and the remaining 98 (84%) patients did not. Cold ischemic time, posttransplant extracorporeal life support for primary graft dysfunction, and intensive care unit stay time did not differ between groups. At 1-year follow-up, freedom from pulsed steroid therapy for presumed rejection and biopsy-confirmed acute cellular or humoral rejection did not differ between groups. One-year survival amounted to 94.7% in the treated patients and 81.4% in the control group. Therefore, heart transplantation in sensitized recipients undergoing a perioperative desensitization appears safe with comparable postoperative outcomes as patients with a negative crossmatch.

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.

Trends and impact on cold ischemia time and clinical outcomes using virtual crossmatch for deceased donor kidney transplantation in the United States.

For assessing human leukocyte antigen compatibility in deceased donor kidney transplantation, virtual crossmatch is used as an alternative to physical crossmatch and has potential to reduce cold ischemia time. The 2014 United States kidney allocation system prioritized highly sensitized candidates but led to increased shipping of kidneys. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we evaluated changes in virtual crossmatch use with the new allocation policy and the impact of virtual crossmatch use on cold ischemia time and transplant outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult deceased donor kidney recipients in the United States (2011-2018) transplanted with either 9,632 virtual or 71,839 physical crossmatches. Before allocation change, only 9% of transplants were performed relying on a virtual crossmatch. After the 2014 allocation change, this increased by 2.4%/year so that 18% transplants in 2018 were performed with just a virtual crossmatch. There was significant variation in virtual crossmatch use among transplant regions (range 0.7-36%) and higher use was noted among large volume centers. Compared to physical crossmatches, virtual crossmatches were significantly associated with shorter cold ischemia times (mean 15.0 vs 16.5 hours) and similar death-censored graft loss and mortality (both hazard ratios HR 0.99) at a median follow-up of 2.9 years. Thus, our results show that virtual crossmatch is an attractive strategy for shortening cold ischemia time without negatively impacting transplant outcomes. Hence, strategies to optimize use and reduce practice variation may allow for maximizing benefits from virtual crossmatch.

The long and winding road towards epitope matching in clinical transplantation.

Recent data suggest that HLA epitope matching is beneficial for the prevention of de novo donor specific antibody (DSA) formation after transplantation. In this review, different approaches to predict the immunogenicity of an HLA mismatch will be discussed. The parameters used in these models are often called epitopes but the actual antibody epitope is far more complex. Exact knowledge of the antibody epitope is crucial if epitope matching is also used as a tool to select compatible donors for (highly) sensitized patients. Evidence is provided that it is not always possible to give an exact definition of an antibody epitope. We conclude that HLA "epitope" matching is superior over HLA antigen matching with respect to the prevention of de novo DSA formation and will enhance the prediction of acceptable HLA mismatches for sensitized patients. However, epitope matching at our current level of knowledge will not solve all histocompatibility problems as unexpected antibody reactivity still may occur.

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.

Transplant immuno-diagnostics: crossmatch and antigen detection.

Identifying and monitoring donor-directed anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies are a rapidly evolving area of solid organ transplantation. Donor-specific antibodies dictate pre-transplant donor choice and donor-recipient matching and underlie much acute and chronic allograft rejection and loss. The evolution of available technology has driven this progress. Early, labor-intensive, whole-cell assays based on complement-dependent cytotoxicity suffered from poor sensitivity and specificity, technical challenges and lack of precision. Sequential improvement in assay performance included anti-human immunoglobulin-enhanced, complement-dependent cytotoxicity techniques followed by cell-based flow cytometry. However, variable specificity and sensitivity inherent in cell-based testing continued to limit flow cytometry. The introduction of solid-phase assays led to a second revolution in histocompatibility testing with the use of purified antigens bound to artificial surfaces rather than whole cells. These techniques augmented sensitivity and specificity to detect even low-titer antibodies to previously undetected antigens. Identification of complement-activating antibodies is being introduced, but current technology is in the developmental stage. While the detection of alloantibodies has improved dramatically, our comprehension of their importance remains imperfect. Variability in methodology and a lack of standardization limits the clinical application of these tests. In spite of the hurdles that remain, antibody-mediated rejection has become a key target to improve graft survival.

Determination of unacceptable HLA antigen mismatches in kidney transplant recipients: recommendations of the German Society for Immunogenetics.

One of the major tasks of histocompatibility and immunogenetics laboratories is the pretransplant determination of unacceptable antigen mismatches (UAM) in kidney transplant recipients. In this procedure, human leucocyte antigen (HLA) specificities are defined against which the patient has circulating alloantibodies that are expected to harm the transplanted organ. Using the information on UAM and the potential donor's complete HLA typing, prediction of the crossmatch result, the so called 'virtual crossmatch', is possible. Currently, the laboratories are using different algorithms for the determination of UAM, and depending on the algorithm, more or fewer organ offers are excluded for patients with a similar antibody profile. In order to bring homogeneity into the allocation of organs to immunized patients in Germany, the German Society for Immunogenetics established, on the basis of current knowledge, recommendations for the determination of UAM. The UAM recommendations, which are thought to serve as a common tool for responsible physicians at different transplant centers, contain technical issues that need to be considered and are individualized for sensitized patients with a high or intermediate risk of antibody-mediated rejection. The present review contains these recommendations and puts them into perspective to current international practice.

Center-defined unacceptable HLA antigens facilitate transplants for sensitized patients in a multi-center kidney exchange program.

Multi-center kidney paired donation (KPD) is an exciting new transplant option that has not yet approached its full potential. One barrier to progress is accurate virtual crossmatching for KPD waitlists with many highly sensitized patients. Virtual crossmatch results from a large multi-center consortium, the National Kidney Registry (NKR), were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of flexible center-specific criteria for virtual crossmatching. Approximately two-thirds of the patients on the NKR waitlist are highly sensitized (>80% CPRA). These patients have antibodies against HLA-A (63%), HLA-B (66%), HLA-C (41%), HLA-DRB1 (60%), HLA-DRB3/4/5 (18-22%), HLA-DQB1 (54%) and HLA-DPB1 (26%). With donors typed for these loci before activation, 91% of virtual crossmatches accurately predicted an acceptable cell-based donor crossmatch. Failed virtual crossmatches were attributed to equivocal virtual crossmatches (46%), changes in HLA antibodies (21%), antibodies against HLA-DQA (6%), transcription errors (6%), suspected non-HLA antibodies (5%), allele-specific antibodies (1%) and unknown causes (15%). Some failed crossmatches could be prevented by modifiable factors such as more frequent assessment of HLA antibodies, DQA1 typing of donors and auditing data entry. Importantly, when transplant centers have flexibility to define crossmatch criteria, it is currently feasible to use virtual crossmatching for highly sensitized patients to reliably predict acceptable cell-based crossmatches.

Complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch in solid organ transplantation: The gold standard or golden history?

Complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-XM) has been considered for many years the standard of practice for determining compatibility in solid organ transplantation (SOT). However, as this method is laborious, time intensive and lacks sensitivity and specificity, it has been replaced in many laboratories worldwide by flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM) and/or virtual crossmatch (vXM). With this study we intend to show the relevance of performing CDC-XM in the era of virtual crossmatching. We retrospectively analyzed 1,007 consecutive T and B cell deceased donor (DD) CDC-XMs performed in parallel using non-treated and dithiothreitol (DTT) treated sera between May 2022 and January 2023 in waitlisted patients with no donor specific antibodies (DSA) against HLA-A, B and/or DR antigens. Thirty five of 1,007 (3.5%) T cell crossmatches and 132 of 1,007 (13.1%) B cell crossmatches were positive with non-treated sera. Correlation with the vXM demonstrated no DSA in any of the positive T cell crossmatches. DSA were also absent in 126/132 positive B cell crossmatches, indicating a high rate of false positive CDC-XM. Indeed, only 4/35 T cell and 13/132 B cell CDC-XM remained positive after treatment with DTT, confirming that false positive reactivity with non-treated sera is high. Class I HLA DSA against C locus antigens were present in 17/1,007 T cell crossmatches and none were detected by CDC-XM (sensitivity = 0%). Similarly, only 6/77 B cell crossmatches with DSA targeting HLA-C, DQ and/or DP antigens were CDC-XM positive (sensitivity = 7.8%). Furthermore, only 4/6 positive B cell CDC-XM were confirmed to have complement binding potential using the C1q assay, suggesting additional false positive reactivity in 2/6 of the positive CDC-XM. Our study demonstrates that CDC-XM exhibits poor sensitivity, high false positive reactivity (especially without DTT treatment) and does not meaningfully contribute to pre-transplant compatibility testing in the context of vXM based allocation. Furthermore, the use of CDC-XM can unnecessarily delay or even prevent safe and appropriate transplant allocation.

Advancing precision in histocompatibility and immunogenetics: a comprehensive review of the UCLA exchange program.

Precise typing of human leukocyte antigens (HLA) is crucial for clinical hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplantations, transfusion medicine, HLA-related disease association, and drug hypersensitivity analysis. The UCLA Cell Exchange program has played a vital role in providing educational and proficiency testing surveys to HLA laboratories worldwide for the past 5 decades. This article highlights the significant contribution of the UCLA Cell and DNA Exchange Programs in advancing HLA antibody testing, genotyping, crossmatches, and, more recently, virtual crossmatches. Additionally, we discuss future directions of the UCLA Cell Exchange program to support histocompatibility testing to adapt to the fast-evolving field of immunotherapy, tolerance and xenotransplantation.

ABO-adjusted cPRA metric for kidney allocation in an Asian-predominant population.

Recent studies showed that ABO-adjusted calculated panel reactive antibody (ABO-cPRA) may better reflect the histocompatibility level in a multi-ethnic population, but such data in Asians is not available. We developed an ABO-adjusted cPRA metric on a cohort of waitlist kidney transplant patients (n = 647, 99% Chinese) in Hong Kong, based on HLA alleles and ABO frequencies of local donors. The concordance between the web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and the impact on kidney allocation were evaluated. The blood group distribution for A, B, O and AB among waitlist kidney candidates were 26.2%, 27.5%, 40.1%, and 6.1%, and their chances of encountering incompatible blood group donors were 32.6%, 32.4%, 57.6%, and 0%, respectively. There is poor agreement between web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and our locally developed metrics. Over 90% of patients showed an increase in cPRA after ABO adjustment, most notably in those with cPRA between 70% and 79%. Blood group O patients had a much greater increase in cPRA scores after adjustment while patients of blood group A and B had similar increment. 10.6% of non-AB blood group waitlist patients had ABO-cPRA elevated to ≥80%. A local ABO-adjusted cPRA metric is required for Asian populations and may improve equity in kidney distribution for patients with disadvantageous blood groups. The result from the current study potentially helps other countries/localities in establishing their own unified ABO-cPRA metrics and predict the impact on kidney allocation.

Pre-transplant donor specific antibodies in ABO incompatible kidney transplantation - data from the Swiss transplant cohort study.

Background: Living donor (LD) kidney transplantation in the setting of ABO blood group incompatibility (ABOi) has been previously reported to be associated with increased risk for antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). It is however unclear if the presence of pre-transplant donor specific antibodies (DSA) works as an additive risk factor in the setting of ABOi and if DSA positive ABOi transplants have a significantly worse long-term outcome as compared with ABO compatible (ABOc) DSA positive transplants. Methods: We investigated the effect of pre-transplant DSA in the ABOi and ABOc setting on the risk of antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) and graft loss in a cohort of 952 LD kidney transplants. Results: We found a higher incidence of ABMR in ABOi transplants as compared to ABOc transplants but this did not significantly affect graft survival or overall survival which was similar in both groups. The presence of pre-transplant DSA was associated with a significantly increased risk of ABMR and graft loss both in the ABOi and ABOc setting. We could not detect an additional risk of DSA in the ABOi setting and outcomes were comparable between DSA positive ABOi and ABOc recipients. Furthermore, a combination of DSA directed at both Class I and Class II, as well as DSA with a high mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) showed the strongest relation to ABMR development and graft loss. Conclusion: The presence of pre-transplant DSA was associated with a significantly worse long-term outcome in both ABOi and ABOc LD kidney transplants and our results suggests that the risk associated with pre-transplant DSA is perhaps not augmented in the ABOi setting. Our study is the first to investigate the long-term effects of DSA in the ABOi setting and argues that pre-transplant DSA risk could potentially be evaluated similarly regardless of ABO compatibility status.

Algorithms for the determination of unacceptable HLA antigen mismatches in kidney transplant recipients.

One of the major tasks of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) laboratories is the pretransplant determination of unacceptable HLA antigen mismatches (UAM) in organ transplant recipients. HLA antigen specificities are determined against which the patient has circulating alloantibodies that are expected to harm the transplanted organ. Using the information on UAM, negative crossmatch (XM) prediction or 'virtual XM' is possible when a potential donor's complete HLA typing is available. Before the introduction of solid-phase antibody detection assays, UAM were determined using the complement-dependent cytotoxicity methodology. After the introduction of the single antigen bead technique, however, various UAM determination algorithms have emerged. In this report, six different laboratories worldwide present how they determine UAM in their collective of kidney transplant recipients in the pretransplant phase and proceed thereafter to transplantation.

Virtual crossmatch for deceased donor kidney transplantation in the United States: A survey of histocompatibility lab directors and transplant surgeons.

Virtual crossmatch (VXM) is used as an alternative to or in conjunction with a cell-based physical crossmatch (PXM) for assessing HLA (human leukocyte antigen) compatibility prior to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). Data on practice patterns and perceptions regarding VXM use in the US are limited. We performed a survey of US HLA directors and transplant surgeons regarding HLA testing and crossmatch strategies. 53 (56 %) HLA directors and 68 surgeons (representing âˆ¼ 23 % of US transplant centers) completed the survey. Both groups agreed that VXM could reduce cold ischemia time (CIT), costs and improve allocation efficiency. VXM use increased following the 2021 kidney allocation change. Reducing CIT was the primary reason for favoring VXM over PXM. Preference for VXM reduced as candidates' panel reactive antibodies increased. Regulations, program policies and limitations of HLA technology were cited as important reasons for preferring PXM over VXM. Surgeons reported similar perceptions, but findings are limited by the low response rate. Finally, half the labs reported lacking specific protocols for VXM use. In conclusion, improved HLA technology and protocols along with changes to institutional procedures and policy regulations are needed for safer expansion of VXM in DDKT.

Utilizing proficiency testing survey data to create advanced educational content: the virtual crossmatch challenge model.

Proficiency testing (PT) surveys include data from laboratories across the world and are ideal for creating advanced educational content, beyond just consensus grading. Educational challenges provide a unique opportunity to probe common laboratory practices and risk assessment, especially in cases where there is no "analyte" tested. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) compatibility evaluation between donor and recipient pairs has been traditionally assessed using T-cell and B-cell physical crossmatches. However, advancements in our ability to identify and characterize HLA antibodies using solid phase assays, in combination with changing deceased donor allocation schemes and improved HLA typing, have shifted the paradigm from performing physical crossmatches to the use of the virtual crossmatch (VXM). VXM is a compatibility assessment relying on the interpretation of pre-transplant HLA laboratory data and as such, it is not an "analyte". However, VXM results are used in clinical decision-making. The VXM assessment depends on patient characteristics as well as laboratory and transplant center practices but must ensure safe transplantation outcomes while maintaining equity in access to transplantation. In this manuscript, we describe the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (ASHI) PT Educational VXM Challenge, as a model for creating educational content using PT survey data. We discuss the different components of the VXM Challenge and highlight major findings and learning points acquired from ASHI VXM Challenges performed between 2018-2022, such as the lack of correlation between the VXM and the physical crossmatch in the presence of low level donor-specific antibodies (DSA), or when the DSA were aimed against donor alleles that are not present on the antibody panel, and in the presence of an antibody to a shared eplet. Finally, we show that the VXM Educational Challenge serves as a valuable tool to highlight the strengths and pitfalls of the VXM assessment and reveals differences in testing and result interpretation among participating HLA laboratories.

Impact of assigning 2-field HLA alleles from real-time PCR on deceased donor assessments and conformance with high resolution alleles.

Waitlisted sensitised transplant recipients with HLA allele level antibodies to their own HLA antigen family are disadvantaged by current deficiencies in HLA typing for deceased donors. This is primarily because at time of organ allocation, HLA typing is provided at antigen level whereas solid phase assays provide allele level antibody definition. The gold standard for HLA allele typing is next generation sequencing (NGS), however time limitations with established NGS systems prevent NGS use for deceased donors. Instead, many labs use a real-time PCR (qPCR) antigen level result for deceased donors, which can disadvantage sensitised patients. Here, we compared assigning qPCR 2-field alleles to qPCR antigen level to determine the impact on virtual crossmatch (VXM) and discuss impact on donor-specific antibody (DSA) assignments. 244 consecutive deceased donors were HLA typed to allelic level by qPCR (LinkSeq SABR) and subsequently by NGS (One Lambda Alltype). The impact of qPCR allele assignments on potential DSA identification was investigated, by retrospectively investigating all 3904 VXMs, where recipient DSA assessments were assessed against donor HLA, was performed within the cohort. There was 96.3% concordance between qPCR and NGS for all allele level loci, with HLA-A; DQB1; and DPB1 having best agreement (99.4%, 98.4% and 99.4% respectively). Of the 3904 VXMs with qPCR allele assignment, there were 13 (<1%) occasions where the potential DSA assignment was impacted, with DQA1 having the most impact. Assigning alleles derived from qPCR to define unacceptable antigens for VXMs, can allow improved access to donor offers for sensitised patients by better defining alleles.

Donation type and the effect of pre-transplant donor specific antibodies - Data from the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study.

Introduction: The type of donation may affect how susceptible a donor kidney is to injury from pre-existing alloimmunity. Many centers are, therefore, reluctant to perform donor specific antibody (DSA) positive transplantations in the setting of donation after circulatory death (DCD). There are, however, no large studies comparing the impact of pre-transplant DSA stratified on donation type in a cohort with a complete virtual cross-match and long-term follow-up of transplant outcome. Methods: We investigated the effect of pre-transplant DSA on the risk of rejection, graft loss, and the rate of eGFR decline in 1282 donation after brain death (DBD) transplants and compared it to 130 (DCD) and 803 living donor (LD) transplants. Results: There was a significant worse outcome associated with pre-transplant DSA in all of the studied donation types. DSA directed against Class II HLA antigens as well as a high cumulative mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the detected DSA showed the strongest association with worse transplant outcome. We could not detect a significant additive negative effect of DSA in DCD transplantations in our cohort. Conversely, DSA positive DCD transplants appeared to have a slightly better outcome, possibly in part due to the lower mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the pre-transplant DSA. Indeed when DCD transplants were compared to DBD transplants with similar MFI (<6.5k), graft survival was not significantly different. Discussion: Our results suggest that the negative impact of pre-transplant DSA on graft outcome could be similar between all donation types. This suggests that immunological risk assessment could be performed in a similar way regardless of the type of donor kidney transplantation.

COVID-19 infection and vaccination rarely impact HLA antibody profile in waitlisted renal transplant candidates- a multicenter cohort.

Although rare, infection and vaccination can result in antibodies to human leukocyte antigens (HLA). We analyzed the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination on HLA antibodies in waitlisted renal transplant candidates. Specificities were collected and adjudicated if the calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRA) changed after exposure. Of 409 patients, 285 (69.7 %) had an initial cPRA of 0 %, and 56 (13.7 %) had an initial cPRA > 80 %. The cPRA changed in 26 patients (6.4 %), 16 (3.9 %) increased, and 10 (2.4 %) decreased. Based on cPRA adjudication, cPRA differences generally resulted from a small number of specificities with subtle fluctuations around the borderline of the participating centers' cutoff for unacceptable antigen listing. All five COVID recovered patients with an increased cPRA were female (p = 0.02). In summary, exposure to this virus or vaccine does not increase HLA antibody specificities and their MFI in approximately 99 % of cases and 97 % of sensitized patients. These results have implications for virtual crossmatching at the time of organ offer after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and these events of unclear clinical significance should not influence vaccination programs.