1
|
Seeking Standardized Definitions for HLA-incompatible Kidney Transplants: A Systematic Review. Transplantation 2023; 107:231-253. [PMID: 35915547 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000004262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no standard definition for "HLA incompatible" transplants. For the first time, we systematically assessed how HLA incompatibility was defined in contemporary peer-reviewed publications and its prognostic implication to transplant outcomes. METHODS We combined 2 independent searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2015 to 2019. Content-expert reviewers screened for original research on outcomes of HLA-incompatible transplants (defined as allele or molecular mismatch and solid-phase or cell-based assays). We ascertained the completeness of reporting on a predefined set of variables assessing HLA incompatibility, therapies, and outcomes. Given significant heterogeneity, we conducted narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias in studies examining the association between death-censored graft failure and HLA incompatibility. RESULTS Of 6656 screened articles, 163 evaluated transplant outcomes by HLA incompatibility. Most articles reported on cytotoxic/flow T-cell crossmatches (n = 98). Molecular genotypes were reported for selected loci at the allele-group level. Sixteen articles reported on epitope compatibility. Pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies were often considered (n = 143); yet there was heterogeneity in sample handling, assay procedure, and incomplete reporting on donor-specific HLA antibodies assignment. Induction (n = 129) and maintenance immunosuppression (n = 140) were frequently mentioned but less so rejection treatment (n = 72) and desensitization (n = 70). Studies assessing death-censored graft failure risk by HLA incompatibility were vulnerable to bias in the participant, predictor, and analysis domains. CONCLUSIONS Optimization of transplant outcomes and personalized care depends on accurate HLA compatibility assessment. Reporting on a standard set of variables will help assess generalizability of research, allow knowledge synthesis, and facilitate international collaboration in clinical trials.
Collapse
|
2
|
Jackson KR, Long J, Motter J, Bowring MG, Chen J, Waldram MM, Orandi BJ, Montgomery RA, Stegall MD, Jordan SC, Benedetti E, Dunn TB, Ratner LE, Kapur S, Pelletier RP, Roberts JP, Melcher ML, Singh P, Sudan DL, Posner MP, El-Amm JM, Shapiro R, Cooper M, Verbesey JE, Lipkowitz GS, Rees MA, Marsh CL, Sankari BR, Gerber DA, Wellen J, Bozorgzadeh A, Gaber AO, Heher E, Weng FL, Djamali A, Helderman JH, Concepcion BP, Brayman KL, Oberholzer J, Kozlowski T, Covarrubias K, Desai N, Massie AB, Segev DL, Garonzik-Wang J. Center-level Variation in HLA-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes. Transplantation 2021; 105:436-442. [PMID: 32235255 PMCID: PMC8080262 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000003254] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. METHODS We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSIONS Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyle R. Jackson
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Jane Long
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Jennifer Motter
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Mary G Bowring
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Jennifer Chen
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Madeleine M. Waldram
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Babak J Orandi
- Department of Surgery, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL
| | - Robert A. Montgomery
- The NYU Transplant Institute, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Stanley C. Jordan
- Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Transplant Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Enrico Benedetti
- Department of Surgery, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL
| | - Ty B. Dunn
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Lloyd E. Ratner
- Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Sandip Kapur
- Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Ronald P. Pelletier
- Department of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - John P. Roberts
- Department of Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | - Pooja Singh
- Department of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia. PA
| | - Debra L. Sudan
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | - Marc P. Posner
- Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
| | - Jose M. El-Amm
- Integris Baptist Medical Center, Transplant Division, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - Ron Shapiro
- Recanti Miller Transplantation Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | - Michael A. Rees
- Department of Urology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH
| | | | | | - David A. Gerber
- Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Jason Wellen
- Department of Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO
| | - Adel Bozorgzadeh
- Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA
| | - A. Osama Gaber
- Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX
| | - Eliot Heher
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Francis L. Weng
- Renal and Pancreas Transplant Division, Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Livingston, NJ
| | - Arjang Djamali
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | | | | | | | - Jose Oberholzer
- Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
| | | | - Karina Covarrubias
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA
| | - Niraj Desai
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Allan B. Massie
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Dorry L. Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis, MN
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kamburova EG, Wisse BW, Joosten I, Allebes WA, van der Meer A, Hilbrands LB, Baas MC, Spierings E, Hack CE, van Reekum FE, van Zuilen AD, Verhaar MC, Bots ML, Drop ACAD, Plaisier L, Seelen MAJ, Sanders JS.F, Hepkema BG, Lambeck AJA, Bungener LB, Roozendaal C, Tilanus MGJ, Voorter CE, Wieten L, van Duijnhoven EM, Gelens M, Christiaans MHL, van Ittersum FJ, Nurmohamed SA, Lardy NM, Swelsen W, van der Pant KA, van der Weerd NC, ten Berge IJM, Bemelman FJ, Hoitsma A, van der Boog PJM, de Fijter JW, Betjes MGH, Heidt S, Roelen DL, Claas FH, Otten HG. Differential effects of donor-specific HLA antibodies in living versus deceased donor transplant. Am J Transplant 2018; 18:2274-2284. [PMID: 29464832 PMCID: PMC6175247 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2017] [Revised: 01/29/2018] [Accepted: 01/30/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
The presence of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSAs) is associated with increased risk of graft failure after kidney transplant. We hypothesized that DSAs against HLA class I, class II, or both classes indicate a different risk for graft loss between deceased and living donor transplant. In this study, we investigated the impact of pretransplant DSAs, by using single antigen bead assays, on long-term graft survival in 3237 deceased and 1487 living donor kidney transplants with a negative complement-dependent crossmatch. In living donor transplants, we found a limited effect on graft survival of DSAs against class I or II antigens after transplant. Class I and II DSAs combined resulted in decreased 10-year graft survival (84% to 75%). In contrast, after deceased donor transplant, patients with class I or class II DSAs had a 10-year graft survival of 59% and 60%, respectively, both significantly lower than the survival for patients without DSAs (76%). The combination of class I and II DSAs resulted in a 10-year survival of 54% in deceased donor transplants. In conclusion, class I and II DSAs are a clear risk factor for graft loss in deceased donor transplants, while in living donor transplants, class I and II DSAs seem to be associated with an increased risk for graft failure, but this could not be assessed due to their low prevalence.
Collapse
|