Challenges with sensitized recipients in pediatric heart transplantation

The sensitization of patients to human leukocyte antigens prior to heart transplantation is increasingly being recognized as an important challenge both before and after the transplant, and the effects of sensitization on clinical outcomes are just beginning to be understood. Many patients are listed with the requirement of a negative prospective or virtual crossmatch prior to accepting a donor organ. This strategy has been associated with both longer waitlist times and higher waitlist mortality. An alternative approach is to transplant across a potentially positive crossmatch while utilizing strategies to decrease the significance of the human leukocyte antigen antibodies. This review will examine the challenges and the impact of sensitization on pediatric patients prior to and following heart transplantation.

Desensibilización y trasplante renal: plasmaféresis-IVIG a dosis estándar en pacientes con alto riesgo inmunológico / Desensitization and renal transplant: plasmapheresis/IVIG standard dose in patients with high immunological risk

Introducción: Los pacientes con alto riesgo inmunológico siguen siendo relegados a la cada vez más larga lista de espera de un donador inmunológicamente compatible. El objetivo de esta comunicación es informar la experiencia de un centro de trasplantes en la desensibilización de pacientes con alto riesgo inmunológico. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de todos los pacientes sometidos a trasplante renal de noviembre de 1999 a enero de 2008, en quienes se llevó a cabo desensibilización pretrasplante renal. Resultados: Ocho pacientes presentaron aloinmunización (pruebas cruzadas positivas o panel reactivo de anticuerpos alto, PRA > 30 %). La desensibilización se realizó mediante sesiones de plasmaféresis con recambio de 1.5 volúmenes plasmáticos, y posterior a cada una se administró una dosis estándar de inmunoglubulina intravenosa (IVIG 5 g/dosis). La inmunosupresión se inició en la primera sesión de plasmaféresis con base en un inhibidor de calcineurinas (tacrolimus); en seis pacientes se añadió mofetil micofenolato y en dos, sirolimus. En siete se obtuvieron pruebas cruzadas negativas con el donador previo al trasplante; en el octavo no se efectuaron. En dos se administró anticuerpos humanizados contra CD25 (20 mg/dosis de basiliximab). Todos los pacientes han mantenido función estable del injerto. Conclusiones: De acuerdo con nuestra experiencia, la sobrevida del injerto renal en pacientes con alto riesgo inmunológico posterior a un adecuado protocolo de desensibilización y estrecha vigilancia postrasplante es similar a la observada en pacientes no sensibilizados, al menos durante el primer año del trasplante.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high immunological risk have been relegated to the growing waiting list for an immunologically compatible donor. Our objective was to report the experience of a transplant center in desensitization of patients with high immunological risk. METHODS: We carried out a descriptive and retrospective study. Included were all the renal transplant patients from November 1999 to January 2008 in which we used plasmapheresis and standard dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) as desensitization. RESULTS: Eight patients had history of alloimmunity (positive crossmatch or high panel-reactive antibodies (PRA >30%). Desensitization was accomplished with plasmapheresis and exchange of 1.5 plasma volume. Subsequent to each session we administered a standard dose of IVIG (5 g/dose). Immunosuppression began equal to the first plasmapheresis with calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus) plus six patients with mycophenolate mofetil and two patients with sirolimus. In seven cases, negative crossmatches were obtained before the transplantation, except in the eighth case in whom it was not done. Two patients received human antibodies against CD25 (basiliximab, 20 mg/dose). During their evolution, all patients maintained stable graft function. CONCLUSIONS: According to our experience, renal graft outcome in patients with high immunological risk after an adequate desensitization protocol is similar to that observed in nonsensitized patients, at least during the first year of transplantation.

Comparative Evaluation of ELISA and Luminex Panel Reactive Antibody Assays for HLA Alloantibody Screening / 대한진단검사의학회지

BACKGROUND: For the detection of HLA antibodies, solid-phase tests using purified HLA antigens are increasingly used. In this study, we analyzed the panel reactive antibody (PRA) test results using ELISA and Luminex methods, and the results were compared with those of crossmatch test. METHODS: A total of 111 sera including 90 sera from kidney transplanted patients were tested. ELISA-PRA was performed using Lambda Antigen Tray Class I and II Mixed kits (One Lambda Inc., USA) and additional test was performed to identify HLA specificities. Luminex-PRA tests were performed using LABScreen Mixed kits (One Lambda Inc., USA) and LIFECODES LifeScreen Deluxe kits (Tepnel Co., USA). RESULTS: The positive rates of PRA were higher in Tepnel (P=0.006) and One Lambda Luminex (P<0.001) methods than ELISA, without significant difference between two Luminex methods (P=0.087). The overall concordance rate among the three PRA tests was 62.2% (69/111). The positive and negative predictive values of PRA tests for the flow cytometric crossmatch were 33.3-45.7% and 85.7-89.5%, respectively. Of the two Luminex methods, One Lambda showed higher positive rate than Tepnel for the detection of class I antibodies. The sensitivity of pretransplant PRA for the detection of posttransplant acute rejection episodes was higher in Luminex (P=0.007 for Tepnel, P=0.003 for One lambda) than ELISA method. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods used to detect HLA antibodies showed discrepant results. As the Luminex method was more sensitive than ELISA for the detection of HLA antibodies, it can be used as a routine test in the transplantation laboratory.