Dynamics and epitope specificity of anti-human leukocyte antibodies following renal allograft nephrectomy

Challenges in the management of the kidney allograft: from decline to failure: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

In March 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a virtual Controversies Conference to address the important but rarely examined phase during which the kidney transplant is failing or has failed. In addition to discussing the definition of a failing allograft, 4 broad areas were considered in the context of a declining functioning graft: prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; immunosuppression strategies; management of medical and psychological complications, and patient factors; and choice of kidney replacement therapy or supportive care following graft loss. Identifying and paying special attention to individuals with failing allografts was felt to be important in order to prepare patients psychologically, manage immunosuppression, address complications, prepare for dialysis and/or retransplantation, and transition to supportive care. Accurate prognostication tools, although not yet widely available, were embraced as necessary to define allograft survival trajectories and the likelihood of allograft failure. The decision of whether to withdraw or continue immunosuppression after allograft failure was deemed to be based most appropriately on risk-benefit analysis and likelihood of retransplantation within a few months. Psychological preparation and support was identified as a critical factor in patient adjustment to graft failure, as was early communication. Several models of care were noted that enabled a medically supportive transition back to dialysis or retransplantation. Emphasis was placed on the importance of dialysis-access readiness before initiation of dialysis, in order to avoid use of central venous catheters. The centrality of the patient to all management decisions and discussions was deemed to be paramount. Patient "activation," which can be defined as engaged agency, was seen as the most effective way to achieve success. Unresolved controversies, gaps in knowledge, and areas for research were also stressed in the conference deliberations.

Allograft nephrectomy vs. no nephrectomy for failed renal transplants

The role of allograft nephrectomy (AN) in failed renal transplants is a topic of debate, owing to controversial results reported in the literature and the fact that most of the studies are limited by a retrospective design and small numbers of participants. Allograft nephrectomy is most likely of benefit in the patient with recurrent allograft intolerance syndrome (AIS) following pulse steroids. Immunosuppression weaning in the presence of clinical signs related to a chronic inflammatory state is also reasonable grounds to pursue AN. Studies are mainly inconclusive but suggest that AN has no overall benefit for allograft survival after retransplant. This topic is still of interest in the transplant field and is particularly relevant for patients who are likely to require retransplantation within their lifetime. Further assessment is needed in the form of randomized controlled trials that control for various AN indications and immunosuppression regimens, and have clearly defined survival outcomes.

Pearls and Pitfalls in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation After 5 Decades

Worldwide, over 1,300 pediatric kidney transplantations are performed every year. Since the first transplantation in 1959, healthcare has evolved dramatically. Pre-emptive transplantations with grafts from living donors have become more common. Despite a subsequent improvement in graft survival, there are still challenges to face. This study attempts to summarize how our understanding of pediatric kidney transplantation has developed and improved since its beginnings, whilst also highlighting those areas where future research should concentrate in order to help resolve as yet unanswered questions. Existing literature was compared to our own data of 411 single-center pediatric kidney transplantations between 1968 and 2020, in order to find discrepancies and allow identification of future challenges. Important issues for future care are innovations in immunosuppressive medication, improving medication adherence, careful donor selection with regard to characteristics of both donor and recipient, improvement of surgical techniques and increased attention for lower urinary tract dysfunction and voiding behavior in all patients.

Allograft nephrectomy versus nonallograft nephrectomy after failed renal transplantation: a systematic review by updated meta-analysis

There is limited evidence regarding the impact of allograft nephrectomy (AN) on the long-term outcome of subsequent kidney re-transplantation compared with no prior allograft nephrectomy. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the accumulation of evidence over time. Primary outcomes were 5-year graft and patient survival. Cochrane library, Google scholar, PubMed, Medline and Embase were systematically searched. Meta-analysis was conducted using both fixed- and random-effects models. Study quality was assessed in duplicate using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Sixteen studies were included, with a total of 2256 patients. All included studies were retrospective and comparative. There was no significant difference in 5-year graft survival (GS) [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.11, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 0.89, 1.38, P = 0.37, I²  = 10%) or in 5-year patient survival (PS; HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.45, 1.10, P = 0.12, I²  = 0%]. Patients in the AN cohort were significantly younger than patients in the nonallograft nephrectomy (NAN) cohort by one year. Prior allograft nephrectomy was associated with a significantly higher risk of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, primary nonfunction (PNF), per cent of panel reactive antibodies (% PRA) and allograft loss of the subsequent transplant. Although, DGF, % PRA, acute rejection and primary nonfunction rates were significantly higher in the AN cohort, allograft nephrectomy prior to re-transplantation had no significant association with five-year graft and patient survival.

Kidney re-transplantation after living donor graft nephrectomy due to de novo chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

There are few reported cases of allograft nephrectomy due to malignancy followed by successful renal re-transplantation two years later. In this paper, we report a patient who underwent kidney re-transplantation after living donor graft nephrectomy due to de novo chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) involving the allograft kidney.

CASE SUMMARY

A 34-year-old man underwent living kidney transplantation at the age of 22 years for end-stage renal disease. Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone. Six years post-transplantation, at another hospital, ultrasonography revealed a small mass involving the upper pole of the graft. The patient declined further examination and treatment at this point. Seven years and three months post-transplantation, the patient experienced decreasing appetite, weight loss, gross hematuria, fatigue, and oliguria. Laboratory tests showed anemia (hemoglobin level was 53 g/L). Contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a large heterogeneous cystic-solid mass involving the upper pole of the renal allograft. Graft nephrectomy was performed and immunosuppressants were withdrawn. Histological and immunohistochemical features of the tumor were consistent with ChRCC. One year after allograft nephrectomy, low doses of tacrolimus and MMF were administered for preventing allosensitization. Two years after allograft nephrectomy, the patient underwent kidney re-transplantation. Graft function remained stable with no ChRCC recurrence in more than 2-years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

De novo ChRCC in kidney graft generally has a good prognosis after graft nephrectomy and withdrawal of immunosuppression. Kidney re-transplantation could be a viable treatment. A 2-year malignancy-free period may be sufficient time before re-transplantation.

What happens after graft loss? A large, long-term, single-center observation

The number of patients returning to dialysis after graft failure increases. Surprisingly, little is known about the clinical and immunological outcomes of this cohort. We retrospectively analyzed 254 patients after kidney allograft loss between 1997 and 2017 and report clinical outcomes such as mortality, relisting, retransplantations, transplant nephrectomies, and immunization status. Of the 254 patients, 49% had died 5 years after graft loss, while 27% were relisted, 14% were on dialysis and not relisted, and only 11% were retransplanted 5 years after graft loss. In the complete observational period, 111/254 (43.7%) patients were relisted. Of these, 72.1% of patients were under 55 years of age at time of graft loss and only 13.5% of patients were ≥65 years. Age at graft loss was associated with relisting in a logistic regression analysis. In the complete observational period, 42 patients (16.5%) were retransplanted. Only 4 of those (9.5%) were ≥65 years at time of graft loss. Nephrectomy had no impact on survival, relisting, or development of dnDSA. Patients after allograft loss have a high overall mortality. Immunization contributes to long waiting times. Only a very limited number of patients are retransplanted especially when ≥65 years at time of graft loss.

Management of patients with a failed kidney transplant: what should we do?

The number of kidney transplant recipients returning to dialysis after graft failure is steadily increasing over time. Patients with a failed kidney transplant have been shown to have a significant increase in mortality compared with patients with a functioning graft or patients initiating dialysis for the first time. Moreover, the risk for infectious complications, cardiovascular disease and malignancy is greater than in the dialysis population due to the frequent maintenance of low-dose immunosuppression, which is required to reduce the risk of allosensitization, particularly in patients with the prospect of retransplantation from a living donor. The management of these patients present several controversial opinions and clinical guidelines are lacking. This article aims to review the leading evidence on the main issues in the management of patients with failed transplant, including the ideal timing and modality of dialysis reinitiation, the indications for an allograft nephrectomy or the correct management of immunosuppression during graft failure. In summary, retransplantation is a feasible option that should be considered in patients with graft failure and may help to minimize the morbidity and mortality risk associated with dialysis reinitiation.

Allosensitization after transplant failure: the role of graft nephrectomy and immunosuppression - a retrospective study

There are conflicting data about the role of transplant nephrectomy and immunosuppression withdrawal on the development of allosensitization and the impact on re-transplantation. We divided 109 first graft recipients into two groups according to whether they underwent nephrectomy (NX+, n = 61) or their graft was left in situ (NX-, n = 48). Sera were assessed for HLA-A/B/Cw/DR/DQ antibodies at the time of NX/transplant failure and after 3, 6, 12, 24 months. The NX+ group showed a higher rate of donor specific antibody (DSA) and non-DSA human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody production at all the time points. Multivariable analysis showed that nephrectomy was a strong, independent risk factor for the development of DSAs after 12 and 24 months (P = 0.005 and 0.008). In the NX- group, low tacrolimus levels correlated with DSA formation (AUC 0.817, P = 0.002; best cut-off level 2.9 ng/ml). Analysis with a standardized pool of UK donors showed a more difficult grade of HLA matchability following nephrectomy compared with the NX- group. Nephrectomy is followed by the long-term production of DSA and non-DSA HLA antibodies and negatively impacts on the chances of finding a HLA-compatible kidney. Tacrolimus levels ≥3 ng/ml are protective against the development of allosensitization and could facilitate re-transplantation in the NX- group.

The results of HLA-incompatible kidney transplantation according to pre-transplant crossmatch tests: Donor-specific antibody as a prominent predictor of acute rejection

BACKGROUND

Crossmatching (XM) between organ donors and recipients is correlated with clinical outcomes. This study evaluates the results of HLA-incompatible kidney transplant (HLA-i KT) according to pre-transplant XM modalities.

METHODS

This study included 731 consecutive patients. HLA-i KT was defined as a transplant under conditions of complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) XM positivity, flow-cytometric XM (FCXM) positivity, and/or maximal donor-specific antibody (DSA) mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) ≥5000.

RESULTS

The incidence of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) within 1 year after transplant was significantly higher in the HLA-i group than in the HLA compatible (HLA-c) group (15 vs 9 patients, 14.2% vs 1.4%; P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis indicated that a DSA MFI ≥5000 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-6.98; P = 0.05) was significantly associated with acute rejection (AR), whereas CDC (OR = 2.09; 95% CI, 0.55-7.99; P = 0.28) and FCXM positivity (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 0.73-5.87; P = 0.17) were not. Similarly, DSA MFI ≥ 5000 (OR = 4.14; P = 0.02) was the only significant factor affecting the risk of AMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the various XM tests, DSA MFI ≥5000 was the most prominent predictor of AR in patients undergoing HLA-i KT.

Management of chronic renal allograft dysfunction and when to re-transplant

Despite the advances in renal transplantation over the last decades, chronic allograft dysfunction remains the largest concern for patients, their families, clinicians and other members of the multi-disciplinary team. Although we have made progress in improving patient and renal allograft survival within the first year after transplantation, the rate of transplant failure with requirement for commencement of dialysis or re-transplantation has essentially remained unchanged. It is important that paediatric and adult nephrologists and transplant surgeons, not only manage their patients and their renal transplants but provide the best chronic kidney disease management during the time of decline of renal allograft function. The gold standard for patients with Stage V chronic kidney disease is to have pre-emptive living donor transplants, where possible and the same is true for healthy renal transplant recipients with declining renal allograft function. The consideration for children and young people as they embark on their end-stage kidney disease journey is the risk-benefit profile of giving the best immunologically matched and good quality renal allografts as they may require multiple renal transplantation operations during their lifetime.

The Impact of Withdrawal of Maintenance Immunosuppression and Graft Nephrectomy on HLA Sensitization and Calculated Chance of Future Transplant

Background

The development of HLA antibodies towards a failing renal allograft is a barrier to retransplantation. This study aimed to compare the formation of HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in patients undergoing graft nephrectomy and in those with a failed graft left in situ who had maintenance immunosuppression (IS) stopped, and assess the relative impact of IS cessation and graft nephrectomy on future relative chance of transplant (R-CoT).

Methods

A single-center retrospective study of patients with failed grafts between 2005 and 2015 was performed. Samples were tested for DSA pre-IS wean, post-IS wean, and post-IS cessation. Nephrectomy patients additionally had samples tested for DSA before and after nephrectomy. Calculated reaction frequency (cRF) was determined at each timepoint and entered into the UK Organ Donation and Transplant R-CoT calculator.

Results

Forty-one patients were included in the study: 24 with nephrectomy and 17 with a failed graft in situ. Patient demographics and duration of IS wean were similar between groups. There was a higher rate of blood transfusion (54% vs 24%) in nephrectomy patients. In patients whose graft remained in situ, cRF rose from 13% pre-IS wean to 40% post-IS wean and 62% after IS cessation. This equated to a reduction in mean R-CoT from 54% to 46% at 5 years. In patients undergoing nephrectomy mean cRF rose from 31% pre-IS wean to 69% post-IS wean and 89% post-IS cessation. Mean R-CoT fell from 54% to 42% at 5 years.

Conclusions

A stepwise increase in cRF with reduced chance of transplant was observed in both groups as IS was withdrawn, with a similar pattern irrespective of graft nephrectomy. Calculated reaction frequency was higher in the nephrectomy group. The risks and benefits of stopping IS need to be carefully considered on an individual basis to maximize chance of future transplant.

Transplant nephrectomy after graft failure: is it so risky? Impact on morbidity, mortality and alloimmunization

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of transplant nephrectomy on morbidity and mortality and HLA immunization.

METHODS

All patients who underwent transplant nephrectomy in our centre between 2000 and 2016 were included in this study. A total of 2822 renal transplantations and 180 transplant nephrectomies were performed during this period.

RESULTS

The indications for transplant nephrectomy were graft intolerance syndrome: 47.2%, sepsis: 22.2%, vascular thrombosis: 15.5%, tumour: 8.3% and other 6.8%. Transplant nephrectomies were performed via an intracapsular approach in 61.7% of cases. The blood transfusion rate was 50%, the morbidity rate was 38% and the mortality rate was 3%. Transplant nephrectomies more than 12 months after renal transplant failure were associated with more complications (p = 0.006). Transfusions in the context of transplant nephrectomy had no significant impact on alloimmunization.

CONCLUSION

The risk of bleeding, and therefore of transfusion, constitutes the major challenge of this surgery in patients eligible for retransplantation. Even if transfusions in this context of transplant nephrectomy had no significant impact on alloimmunization, this high-risk surgery, whenever possible, must be performed electively in a well-prepared patient.

Management of chronic renal allograft dysfunction and when to re-transplant

Despite the advances in renal transplantation over the last decades, chronic allograft dysfunction remains the largest concern for patients, their families, clinicians and other members of the multi-disciplinary team. Although we have made progress in improving patient and renal allograft survival within the first year after transplantation, the rate of transplant failure with requirement for commencement of dialysis or re-transplantation has essentially remained unchanged. It is important that paediatric and adult nephrologists and transplant surgeons, not only manage their patients and their renal transplants but provide the best chronic kidney disease management during the time of decline of renal allograft function. The gold standard for patients with Stage V chronic kidney disease is to have pre-emptive living donor transplants, where possible and the same is true for healthy renal transplant recipients with declining renal allograft function. The consideration for children and young people as they embark on their end-stage kidney disease journey is the risk-benefit profile of giving the best immunologically matched and good quality renal allografts as they may require multiple renal transplantation operations during their lifetime.

Correlations between donor-specific antibodies and non-adherence with chronic active antibody-mediated rejection phenotypes and their impact on kidney graft survival

Chronic-active antibody-mediated rejection (CAABMR) is associated with poor kidney graft survival and has no clear effective treatment. Forty-one cases of CAABMR were detected in indication graft biopsies and evaluated according to current Banff classification. We investigated the impact of concurrent donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and their characteristics, together with non-adherence regarding immunosuppression on CAABMR histopathological phenotypes and prognosis. Twenty-four (59%) patients had detectable DSA at biopsy, with 15 of them being considered non-adherent. Graft function at biopsy was similar in DSA (+) and (-) patients. DSA (+) patients had significantly higher tubulointerstitial inflammation (i and ti) and acute humoral (g+ptc+v+C4d) composite score than DSA (-). DSA (+)/non-adherent cases presented additionally with increased microvascular inflammation (ptc and v), besides having a distinctively lower ah score. C1q DSA strength was higher (P = .046) in non-adherent patients and correlated closely with C4d score (P = .002). Lower graft function and ah score, higher proteinuria and ci + ct score, and, separately per each model, DSA (+) (HR = 2.446, P = .034), DSA (+)/non-adherent (HR = 3.657, P = .005) and DSA (+)/C1q (+) (HR = 4.831, P = .003) status were independent predictors of graft failure. CAABMR with concomitant DSA pose a higher risk of graft failure. Adherence should be evaluated, and histopathological phenotyping and DSA characterization may add critical information.

Transplant glomerulopathy

In the renal allograft, transplant glomerulopathy represents a morphologic lesion and not a specific diagnosis. The hallmark pathologic feature is glomerular basement membrane reduplication by light microscopy or electron microscopy in the absence of immune complex deposits. Transplant glomerulopathy results from chronic, recurring endothelial cell injury that can be mediated by HLA alloantibodies (donor-specific antibodies), various autoantibodies, cell-mediated immune injury, thrombotic microangiopathy, or chronic hepatitis C. Clinically, transplant glomerulopathy may be silent, detectable on protocol biopsy, or present with overt manifestations, including up to nephrotic range proteinuria, hypertension, and declining glomerular filtration rate. In either case, transplant glomerulopathy is associated with reduced graft survival. This review details the morphologic features of transplant glomerulopathy found on light microscopy, immunofluorescence microscopy, and electron microscopy. The pathophysiology of the causes and risk factors are discussed. Clinical manifestations are emphasized and potential therapeutic modalities are examined.

Graft nephrectomy in children

Kidney transplantation is recognised as the gold standard treatment of end-stage renal disease in most children, with excellent graft survival rates. When graft failure occurs, renal transplant recipients (RTRs) have the option of removal of the transplant (graft nephrectomy [GN]), or leaving the failed transplant in situ. The aims of this review are to discuss the indications for GN, surgical techniques, outcomes after GN (including risks of allosensitisation and the impact on subsequent transplants), and the possible role of routine GN in the asymptomatic RTR with a failed renal allograft. Literature in both the pediatric and adult renal transplant fields is reviewed. We also discuss how future research in this area could advance our knowledge of which patients to select for GN, and the most appropriate surgical approach.

Impact on mid-term kidney graft outcomes of pretransplant anti-HLA antibodies detected by solid-phase assays: Do donor-specific antibodies tell the whole story?

The detrimental impact of preformed anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is well defined, contrarily to non-donor-specific antibodies (NDSA). We sought to evaluate their clinical impact in a cohort of 724 kidney graft recipients in whom anti-HLA antibodies were thoroughly screened and identified in pre-transplant sera by solid-phase assays. NDSA or DSA were detected in 100 (13.8%) and 47 (6.5%) recipients respectively, while 577 (79.7%) were non-allosensitized (NaS). Incidence of antibody-mediated rejection at 1-year was 0.7%, 4.0% and 25.5% in NaS, NDSA and DSA patients, respectively (NaS vs. NDSA P=0.004; NaS vs. DSA P<0.001; NDSA vs. DSA P<0.001). Graft survival was lowest in DSA (78.7%), followed by NDSA (88.0%) and NaS (93.8%) recipients (NaS vs. NDSA P=0.015; NaS vs. DSA P<0.001; NDSA vs. DSA P=0.378). Multivariable competing risk analysis confirmed both NDSA (sHR=2.19; P=0.025) and DSA (sHR=2.87; P=0.012) as significant predictors of graft failure. The negative effect of NDSA and DSA on graft survival was significant in patients receiving no induction (P=0.019) or an anti-IL-2 receptor antibody (P<0.001), but not in those receiving anti-thymocyte globulin (P=0.852). The recognition of the immunological risk associated with preformed DSA but also NDSA have important implications in patients' risk stratification, and may impact clinical decisions at transplant.

Effect of Single Sensitization Event on Human Leukocyte Antigen Alloimmunization in Kidney Transplant Candidates: A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

Human leukocyte antigen alloimmunization is caused by exposure to HLA antigens through transfusion, pregnancy, or transplant. Our study objective was to present the rate of positivity of anti-HLA antibody considering the effects of a single sensitization event in kidney transplant candidates at our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study reviewed 606 kidney transplant candidates. Patient sera were analyzed using Luminex xMAP technology. Panel reactive antibody positivity rates and antibody strengths in patients were analyzed according to a single sensitization event.

RESULTS

Our findings showed 246 patients (40.6%) with a panel reactive antibody > 0, of which 97 (39.4%) were sensitized from a single event, 119 (48.4%) were sensitized by multiple events, and 30 (12.2%) had no known sensitizing event. Considering patients sensitized by a single event with a panel reactive antibody > 0, we found that 25.8% had received transplant only, 49.5% had previous pregnancy only, and 24.7% had received transfusion only. The strength of antibodies was significantly higher in patients with previous transplant procedures than in those with transfusion for HLA-A (P < .01), HLA-B (P < .05), HLA-C (P < .05), HLA-DR (P < .001), HLA-DQ (P < .05), and HLA-DP (P < .05). Similarly, we observed significantly higher median fluorescence intensity values for HLA-A, -DR, -DQ, and -DP loci in patients with a previous transplant procedure versus pregnancy. The strength of antibodies against HLA-DR was significantly higher in patients with a previous pregnancy compared with those with transfusion (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents the profile of HLA alloimmunization in kidney transplant candidates. In particular, transplant procedures appear to have a greater immunologic impact, followed by pregnancy and transfusion. Our data confirm and are in accordance with those of several studies in which the sensitization events were associated with higher prevalence of anti-HLA antibodies.

The Humoral Theory of Transplantation: Epitope Analysis and the Pathogenicity of HLA Antibodies

Central to the humoral theory of transplantation is production of antibodies by the recipient against mismatched HLA antigens in the donor organ. Not all mismatches result in antibody production, however, and not all antibodies are pathogenic. Serologic HLA matching has been the standard for solid organ allocation algorithms in current use. Antibodies do not recognize whole HLA molecules but rather polymorphic residues on the surface, called epitopes, which may be shared by multiple serologic HLA antigens. Data are accumulating that epitope analysis may be a better way to determine organ compatibility as well as the potential immunogenicity of given HLA mismatches. Determination of the pathogenicity of alloantibodies is evolving. Potential features include antibody strength (as assessed by antibody titer or, more commonly and inappropriately, mean fluorescence intensity) and ability to fix complement (in vitro by C1q or C3d assay or by IgG subclass analysis). Technical issues with the use of solid phase assays are also of prime importance, such as denaturation of HLA antigens and manufacturing and laboratory variability. Questions and controversies remain, and here we review new relevant data.