Preformed donor-specific antibodies and risk of antibody-mediated rejection in repeat renal transplantation.

Autor:	Tsapepas DS; 1 Department of Pharmacy, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 2 Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 3 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY. 4 Department of Quality, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 5 Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY. 6 Address correspondence to: Demetra S. Tsapepas, Pharm.D., B.C.P.S., Department of Pharmacy, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, Room VCB, New York, NY., Vasilescu R, Tanriover B, Coppleson Y, Rekhtman Y, Hardy MA, Dube G, Crew RJ, Ratner LE, Cohen DJ, Mohan S
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Transplantation [Transplantation] 2014 Mar 27; Vol. 97 (6), pp. 642-7.
DOI:	10.1097/01.TP.0000440954.14510.6a
Abstrakt:	Background: Allograft outcomes in patients undergoing repeat renal transplantation are inferior compared to first-time transplant recipient outcomes. Donor-specific antibodies detected by solid-phase assays (DSA-SPA) may contribute to the worse prognosis. The influence of DSA-SPA on repeat renal transplantation outcomes has not been previously studied in detail. Design: This study reports the findings in 174 patients who underwent repeat renal transplantation between years 2007 and 2012. These included 62 patients with preformed DSA-SPA detected by Luminex at the time of transplantation. Patients received standard and consistent immunosuppression and were monitored closely for evidence of rejection. Recipients who underwent desensitization were excluded from this analysis. Endpoints included development of biopsy-proven acute rejection and analysis of graft survival and function. Results: Patients in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups received similar immunosuppression, and a similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups differed with respect to human leukocyte antigen mismatches (4.7 ± 1.1 vs. 4.1 ± 1.7, P=0.024). Recipients with preformed DSA-SPA had higher rejection rates (54.8% vs. 34.8%, P=0.01), including higher rates of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (32.3% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001). Recipients who were DSA-SPA-positive and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM)-positive had a higher incidence of both AMR (OR 4.6, P=0.009) and of acute rejection (OR 3.57, P=0.02) as compared to those who were DSA-SPA-positive and FCXM-negative. Overall allograft survival was similar in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups (log-rank test=0.63, P=0.428). Differences in allograft function were detectable after 2 years (32.8 ± 13.1 vs. 47 ± 20.2 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P=0.023) and may be reflective of more AMR among DSA-SPA-positive patients. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that DSA-SPA increases the overall risk of acute rejection but does not appear to adversely impact allograft survival during the early follow-up period. Close monitoring of renal function and early biopsy for AMR detection appear to allow for satisfactory short-term allograft outcomes in repeat transplant recipients.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu