Secondary antibody deficiency is associated with development of infection in kidney transplantation: Results of a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter study to assess the association between secondary antibody deficiency (immunoglobulin G [IgG] hypogammaglobulinemia combined with low levels of specific antibodies) and development of infection in kidney transplantation. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 250 adult kidney recipients at four centers. The assessment points were before transplantation and 7 and 30 days after transplantation. The immune parameters were as follows: IgG, IgA, and IgM and complement factors C3 and C4 tested by nephelometry; specific IgG antibodies to cytomegalovirus (CMV) and IgG and IgG2 antibodies to pneumococcal polysaccharide (anti-PPS) determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The clinical follow-up period lasted 6 months. The clinical outcomes were CMV disease and recurrent bacterial infections requiring antimicrobial therapy. STATISTICS: Multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: At day 7, IgG hypogammaglobulinemia (IgG levels < 700 mg/dL) combined with low IgG anti-CMV antibody titers (defined as levels < 10 000 units) was present in 12% of kidney recipients. IgG hypogammaglobulinemia combined with low IgG anti-PPS antibody titers (defined as levels < 10 mg/dL) at 1 month after kidney transplantation were recorded in 16% of patients. At day 7 the combination of IgG hypogammaglobulinemia and low anti-CMV titers was independently associated with the development of CMV disease (odds ratio [OR], 6.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-41.31; P = .033). At day 30 after transplantation, the combination of IgG < 700 mg/dL and IgG anti-PPS < 10 mg/dL, was independently associated with recurrent bacterial infection (OR, 5.942; 95% CI, 1.943-18.172; P = .002). CONCLUSION: In a prospective multicenter study, early immunologic monitoring of secondary antibody deficiency proved useful for the identification of kidney recipients who developed severe infection.

Solutions to Avoid False Positives for Rituximab in Pre-Transplant Crossmatches.

Rituximab (anti-CD20) is commonly used as immunotherapy against B cells, in the context of pre-transplant crossmatches, where the presence of rituximab in the tested sera with donor cells can alter their results both by flow cytometry (FCXM) as complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDCXM) giving rise to false positives. In the present study, we tested the use of an anti-rituximab monoclonal antibody (10C5, Abnova) as a method to avoid false positives in FCXM and CDCXM. We used the serum from ten patients who received therapy with rituximab, and the cells were incubated with sera treated or untreated with the 10C5 clone. In previous studies, attempts have been made to control these false positives through the use of pronase, although in these cases the alteration of Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) molecules has been found to be a limitation. As an alternative, we performed an assay to exclude false positives by a pre-incubation with anti-rituximab antibody (10C5) in 1:5 proportion avoiding the misinterpretation of crossmatches, particularly in patients with specific donor antibodies (DSA) without affecting the HLA molecules.

Immunoserologic Detection and Diagnostic Relevance of Cross-Reactive Autoantibodies in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we detected a new immunofluorescence (IF) pattern in serum autoantibody (autoAb) screening of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. METHODS: The IF pattern was composed of liver and gastric mucosa staining on rat kidney/liver/stomach sections. RESULTS: We describe 12 patients positive for the cross-reactive antibody, compared with a negative group of 43 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, finding association with either neurologic or thrombotic complications. In sequential pre- and post-COVID-19 serum samples, we confirmed autoAb seroconversion. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that autoAb screening in COVID-19 patients may be easily performed by IF and alert for autoreactive-mediated complications such as thrombotic or neurologic events.

Entrenamiento en cirugía robótica: validación de una escala para la evaluación objetiva de destrezas / Training in robotic surgery: validation of a scale for objective skills evaluation

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio consiste en determinarla capacidad de la escala GEARS (global evaluative assessment of robotic skills) para diferenciar individuos con distinto nivel de experiencia en cirugía robótica, como un parámetro fundamental para la validación de la misma. Método: Es un estudio transversal que incluye a tres grupos de individuos con diferente nivel de experiencia en cirugía robótica (expertos, intermedios, novatos), a los cuales se les asignó una tarea sobre un modelo de entrenamiento, siendo evaluados mediante la escala en estudio (GEARS), aplicada por dos evaluadores. La diferencia entre los grupos se determinó mediante el método no paramétrico de Mann Whitney y la consistencia interobservador se estudió mediante el coeficiente W de Kendall. Resultados: Se realizaron un total de 15 evaluaciones, correspondientes a 5 individuos de cada grupo. La concordancia inter-observador de la escala GEARS fue de 0,96. El puntaje obtenido al realizar la evaluación fue de 29,8±0,4; 24±2,8 y 16±3; para los expertos, intermedios y novatos respectivamente, siendo la diferen-cia entre ellos estadísticamente significativa. Todos los parámetros de la escala permiten diferenciar entre los distintos niveles de expe-riencia, con la excepción del ítem percepción de profundidad. Conclusión:Se concluye que la escala GEARS demostró ser capaz de diferenciar entre individuos con distinto nivel de experiencia en cirugía robótica, validándose como una herramienta útil en el entrenamiento y evaluación del cirujano en formación(AU)

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the ability of the GEARS scale (global evaluative assessment of robotic skills) to differentiate individuals with different levels of experience in robotic surgery, as a fundamental validation of the same para-meter. Method: This is a cross-sectional study that included three groups of individuals with different levels of experience in robotic surgery (expert, intermediate, novice) to which they were assigned a task on a training model, and was assessed by the GEARS scale applied by two reviewers. The difference between groups was determined by a nonparametric method from Mann Whitney and the consistency between the reviewers was studied by Kendall W coefficient. Results: A total of 15 evaluations were performed to all the individuals in each group. The agreement between the reviewers of the scale GEARS was 0.96. The score of the assessment was 29.8±0.4 to experts, 24 ±2.8 to intermediates and 16 ±3 to novices,with a statistically significant difference between all of them(p<0.05). All parameters from the scale allow discriminating between different levels of experience, with exception of the depth perception item. Conclusion: We conclude that the scale GEARS was able to differentiate between individuals with different levels of experience in robotic surgery. Therefore is a validated and useful tool to evaluate surgeons in training(AU)