Tailoring Antibody Testing and How to Use it in the Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody Era: The Northwestern University Experience

Background. Patients with human leukocyte antigen antibodies constitute a significantly disadvantaged population among those awaiting renal transplantation. We speculated that more understanding of the patients’ antibody makeup would allow a more “immunologic” evaluation of crossmatch data, facilitate the use of virtual crossmatch (XM), and lead to more transplantability of these patients. Methods. We retrospectively compared the transplantability and transplant outcome of two consecutive patient populations transplanted in our center. Group I (n=374) was evaluated using solid-phase base testing for determination of percentage panel reactive antibody (“PRA screen”) with limited antibody identification testing. Group II (n=333) was tested in a more comprehensive manner with major emphasis on antibody identification, antibody strength assignment, and the use of pronase for crossmatch. Results. Given this approach, 49% (166/333) of the transplanted patients in group II were sensitized compared with 40% (150/374) of the recipients in group I; P=0.012. Transplant outcome at 1-year posttransplant was similar in both groups. Conclusions. We conclude that comprehensive evaluation of human leukocyte antigen sensitization and application of immunologic in analyzing compatibility between donor and recipient can increase the transplantability of sensitized patients while maintaining similar outcome. Our approach is in line with United Network for Organ Sharing new guidelines for calculated panel reactive antibody and virtual XM analysis. We hope this report will prompt additional transplant programs to consider how they will use the new United Network for Organ Sharing algorithms.

[1]  M. Stegall,et al.  Kidney Transplantation in Patients with Antibodies against Donor HLA Class II , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[2]  P. Terasaki,et al.  The Importance of Anti‐HLA‐Specific Antibody Strength in Monitoring Kidney Transplant Patients , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[3]  M. Mihatsch,et al.  Pretransplant Risk Assessment in Renal Allograft Recipients Using Virtual Crossmatching , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[4]  B. Susskind,et al.  Prediction of Crossmatch Outcome of Highly Sensitized Patients by Single and/or Multiple Antigen Bead Luminex Assay , 2006, Transplantation.

[5]  K. Kokko,et al.  Transplanting the Highly Sensitized Patient: The Emory Algorithm , 2006, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[6]  V. D’Agati,et al.  Alloantibodies and the outcome of cadaver kidney allografts. , 2006, Human immunology.

[7]  J. Bradley,et al.  Utility of HLAMatchmaker and Single-Antigen HLA-Antibody Detection Beads for Identification of Acceptable Mismatches in Highly Sensitized Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplantation , 2006, Transplantation.

[8]  K. Mussatto,et al.  The virtual crossmatch – A screening tool for sensitized pediatric heart transplant recipients , 2006, Pediatric transplantation.

[9]  A. Tambur,et al.  Development of donor-specific and non-donor-specific HLA-DP antibodies post-transplant: the role of epitope sharing and epitope matching. , 2006, Clinical transplants.

[10]  E. Reed,et al.  Preformed cytotoxic antibodies in potential allograft recipients: recent data. , 2005, Human immunology.

[11]  R. Wassmuth,et al.  Anti-HLA class II antibodies in kidney retransplant patients. , 2005, Tissue antigens.

[12]  R. Montgomery,et al.  The changing role of antibody testing in transplantation. , 2005, Clinical transplants.

[13]  P. Nickerson,et al.  Pre‐Transplant Assessment of Donor‐Reactive, HLA‐Specific Antibodies in Renal Transplantation: Contraindication vs. Risk , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[14]  A. Kostakis,et al.  Humoral immune reactivity against human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQ graft molecules in the early posttransplantation period. , 2003, Transplantation.

[15]  P. Nickerson,et al.  Flow cytometric crossmatching in primary renal transplant recipients with a negative anti-human globulin enhanced cytotoxicity crossmatch. , 2001, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[16]  P. Lobo,et al.  The use of pronase-digested human leukocytes to improve specificity of the flow cytometric crossmatch , 1995, Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation.

[17]  L. Lebeck,et al.  The flow cytometric crossmatch. Dual-color analysis of T cell and B cell reactivities. , 1989, Transplantation.

[18]  A. Zachary,et al.  Calculation of a predictive value for transplantation. , 1985, Transplantation.