Shared cadaver donor-husband HLA class I mismatches as a risk factor for renal graft rejection in previously pregnant women.

During the last few years, we have observed four cases in which accelerated rejection of a cadaver donor kidney in a previously pregnant woman could be clearly attributed to the rapid emergence of anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies that had been stimulated by mismatched paternal antigens but were completely undetectable at the time of transplantation. In addition to reviewing those cases, we also reviewed data on 19 other women with a history of at least one pregnancy who underwent transplantation with a first cadaveric kidney since 1991 and were followed for at least six months. The HLA antigens of the husbands had to have been determined and all accelerated rejection or early graft losses due to confirmed or presumed immunological causes were considered. Of the 19 additional women meeting these inclusion criteria, three suffered early immunological graft loss. As in our index cases, two of these women had also received kidneys from donors who shared at least one major immunogenic mismatched antigen with the respective husband for a total of six of seven women with early immunological graft loss. Only one of the 16 women without accelerated rejection or early immunological graft loss had a donor who shared a mismatched antigen with her husband. The difference between the two groups is statistically significant (p = 0.0005). These findings, considered with individual cases reported by other groups, indicate that transplantation from a cadaver donor with immunogenic mismatched class I HLA antigen(s) shared with the husband should be avoided in women with a previous history of pregnancy even when anti-HLA antibodies are not currently detected.

Health care's double standard: the prevention dilemma.

Curative services often have been judged by their perceived value, while preventive services have been held to a more rigorous standard of documentation. The dilemma for preventive services is not driven by evidence of their cost-ineffectiveness relative to curative services, but by the paucity of evidence of any type. The issues are whether preventive services of different types are perceived as having value, by what criteria these perceptions are measured, and by whom they are determined. We examine five key constituencies, the measures by which the value of prevention is judged, and the implications for the funding of prevention activities.