Anti-A/B antibody depletion by semiselective versus ABO blood group-specific immunoadsorption

Background. Recipient desensitization using blood group (BG)-specific immunoadsorption (ABO-IA) has proven to enable successful kidney transplantation across major ABO barriers. In this context, the efficiency of non-antigen-specific (semiselective) IA adsorbers has not yet been established. The objective of our study was to quantify anti-A/B antibody depletion by protein A-, peptide ligand- and anti-human immunoglobulin-based semiselective IA in comparison to ABO-IA. Methods. Eight ABO-IA-treated transplant candidates and 39 patients subjected to semiselective IA for a variety of different indications outside the context of ABO-incompatible transplantation were included. Antibody patterns (IgG, IgG1-4 subclasses, IgM, C4d-fixing reactivities) were analysed applying conventional agglutination testing and flow cytometry. Results. As assessed by sensitive flow cytometric antibody detection, ABO-IA-based desensitization led to a profound even though often incomplete reduction of anti-A/B reactivities. Persistent complement- or non-complement-fixing reactivities, however, were not associated with transplant rejection or capillary C4d deposition. Single sessions of semiselective IA turned out to be more effective than ABO-IA in decreasing levels of anti-A/B IgG [median reduction to 28 versus 59% (ABO-IA) of baseline values, P < 0.001). In contrast, BG-specific IgM (74 versus 30%, P < 0.001) and IgG3 (72 versus 42%, P < 0.05) were reduced to a lesser extent, without differences between tested adsorber types. Analysis of four consecutive IA sessions revealed that inferior efficiency could not be overcome by serial treatment. Conclusion. Our observation of limited adsorption capacities regarding distinct BG-specific Ig (sub)classes suggests caution in applying semiselective IA techniques in ABO-incompatible kidney transplantatio

Alloimmune Risk Stratification for Kidney Transplant Rejection

Alloimmune risk; High-risk transplantation; Individualized immunosuppressionRiesgo aloinmune; Trasplante de alto riesgo; Inmunosupresión individualizadaRisc aloimmune; Trasplantament d'alt risc; Immunosupressió individualitzadaDifferent types of kidney transplantations are performed worldwide, including biologically diverse donor/recipient combinations, which entail distinct patient/graft outcomes. Thus, proper immunological and non-immunological risk stratification should be considered, especially for patients included in interventional randomized clinical trials. This paper was prepared by a working group within the European Society for Organ Transplantation, which submitted a Broad Scientific Advice request to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) relating to clinical trial endpoints in kidney transplantation. After collaborative interactions, the EMA sent its final response in December 2020, highlighting the following: 1) transplantations performed between human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical donors and recipients carry significantly lower immunological risk than those from HLA-mismatched donors; 2) for the same allogeneic molecular HLA mismatch load, kidney grafts from living donors carry significantly lower immunological risk because they are better preserved and therefore less immunogenic than grafts from deceased donors; 3) single-antigen bead testing is the gold standard to establish the repertoire of serological sensitization and is used to define the presence of a recipient’s circulating donor-specific antibodies (HLA-DSA); 4) molecular HLA mismatch analysis should help to further improve organ allocation compatibility and stratify immunological risk for primary alloimmune activation, but without consensus regarding which algorithm and cut-off to use it is difficult to integrate information into clinical practice/study design; 5) further clinical validation of other immune assays, such as those measuring anti-donor cellular memory (T/B cell ELISpot assays) and non–HLA-DSA, is needed; 6) routine clinical tests that reliably measure innate immune alloreactivity are lacking.This initiative was supported by the European Society for Organ Transplantation

Proposed Definitions of T Cell-Mediated Rejection and Tubulointerstitial Inflammation as Clinical Trial Endpoints in Kidney Transplantation

T cell-mediated rejection; Kidney transplantation; OutcomesRebuig mediat per cèl·lules T; Trasplantament renal; ResultatsRechazo mediado por células T; Trasplante renal; ResultadosThe diagnosis of acute T cell-mediated rejection (aTCMR) after kidney transplantation has considerable relevance for research purposes. Its definition is primarily based on tubulointerstitial inflammation and has changed little over time; aTCMR is therefore a suitable parameter for longitudinal data comparisons. In addition, because aTCMR is managed with antirejection therapies that carry additional risks, anxieties, and costs, it is a clinically meaningful endpoint for studies. This paper reviews the history and classifications of TCMR and characterizes its potential role in clinical trials: a role that largely depends on the nature of the biopsy taken (indication vs protocol), the level of inflammation observed (e.g., borderline changes vs full TCMR), concomitant chronic lesions (chronic active TCMR), and the therapeutic intervention planned. There is ongoing variability—and ambiguity—in clinical monitoring and management of TCMR. More research, to investigate the clinical relevance of borderline changes (especially in protocol biopsies) and effective therapeutic strategies that improve graft survival rates with minimal patient morbidity, is urgently required. The present paper was developed from documentation produced by the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) as part of a Broad Scientific Advice request that ESOT submitted to the European Medicines Agency for discussion in 2020. This paper proposes to move toward refined definitions of aTCMR and borderline changes to be included as primary endpoints in clinical trials of kidney transplantation.This initiative was supported by the European Society for Organ Transplantation

Proposed Definitions of Antibody-Mediated Rejection for Use as a Clinical Trial Endpoint in Kidney Transplantation

Antibody-mediated rejection; Biopsy; Kidney transplantationRechazo mediado por anticuerpos; Biopsia; Trasplante renalRebuig mediat per anticossos; Biòpsia; Trasplantament renalAntibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is caused by antibodies that recognize donor human leukocyte antigen (HLA) or other targets. As knowledge of AMR pathophysiology has increased, a combination of factors is necessary to confirm the diagnosis and phenotype. However, frequent modifications to the AMR definition have made it difficult to compare data and evaluate associations between AMR and graft outcome. The present paper was developed following a Broad Scientific Advice request from the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which explored whether updating guidelines on clinical trial endpoints would encourage innovations in kidney transplantation research. ESOT considers that an AMR diagnosis must be based on a combination of histopathological factors and presence of donor-specific HLA antibodies in the recipient. Evidence for associations between individual features of AMR and impaired graft outcome is noted for microvascular inflammation scores ≥2 and glomerular basement membrane splitting of >10% of the entire tuft in the most severely affected glomerulus. Together, these should form the basis for AMR-related endpoints in clinical trials of kidney transplantation, although modifications and restrictions to the Banff diagnostic definition of AMR are proposed for this purpose. The EMA provided recommendations based on this Broad Scientific Advice request in December 2020; further discussion, and consensus on the restricted definition of the AMR endpoint, is required.This initiative was supported by the European Society for Organ Transplantation

A Prospective Multicenter Trial to Evaluate Urinary Metabolomics for Non-invasive Detection of Renal Allograft Rejection (PARASOL): Study Protocol and Patient Recruitment

Kidney transplant rejection; Non-invasive test; Urinary metabolitesRechazo del trasplante renal; Prueba no invasiva; Metabolitos urinariosRebuig del trasplantament renal; Prova no invasiva; Metabòlits urinarisBackground: In an earlier monocentric study, we have developed a novel non-invasive test system for the prediction of renal allograft rejection, based on the detection of a specific urine metabolite constellation. To further validate our results in a large real-world patient cohort, we designed a multicentric observational prospective study (PARASOL) including six independent European transplant centers. This article describes the study protocol and characteristics of recruited better patients as subjects. Methods: Within the PARASOL study, urine samples were taken from renal transplant recipients when kidney biopsies were performed. According to the Banff classification, urine samples were assigned to a case group (renal allograft rejection), a control group (normal renal histology), or an additional group (kidney damage other than rejection). Results: Between June 2017 and March 2020, 972 transplant recipients were included in the trial (1,230 urine samples and matched biopsies, respectively). Overall, 237 samples (19.3%) were assigned to the case group, 541 (44.0%) to the control group, and 452 (36.7%) samples to the additional group. About 65.9% were obtained from male patients, the mean age of transplant recipients participating in the study was 53.7 ± 13.8 years. The most frequently used immunosuppressive drugs were tacrolimus (92.8%), mycophenolate mofetil (88.0%), and steroids (79.3%). Antihypertensives and antidiabetics were used in 88.0 and 27.4% of the patients, respectively. Approximately 20.9% of patients showed the presence of circulating donor-specific anti-HLA IgG antibodies at time of biopsy. Most of the samples (51.1%) were collected within the first 6 months after transplantation, 48.0% were protocol biopsies, followed by event-driven (43.6%), and follow-up biopsies (8.5%). Over time the proportion of biopsies classified into the categories Banff 4 (T-cell-mediated rejection [TCMR]) and Banff 1 (normal tissue) decreased whereas Banff 2 (antibody-mediated rejection [ABMR]) and Banff 5I (mild interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy) increased to 84.2 and 74.5%, respectively, after 4 years post transplantation. Patients with rejection showed worse kidney function than patients without rejection. Conclusion: The clinical characteristics of subjects recruited indicate a patient cohort typical for routine renal transplantation all over Europe. A typical shift from T-cellular early rejections episodes to later antibody mediated allograft damage over time after renal transplantation further strengthens the usefulness of our cohort for the evaluation of novel biomarkers for allograft damage.This study was sponsored by numares AG

Anti-A/B antibody depletion by semiselective versus ABO blood group-specific immunoadsorption

Background. Recipient desensitization using blood group (BG)-specific immunoadsorption (ABO-IA) has proven to enable successful kidney transplantation across major ABO barriers. In this context, the efficiency of non-antigen-specific (semiselective) IA adsorbers has not yet been established. The objective of our study was to quantify anti-A/B antibody depletion by protein A-, peptide ligand- and anti-human immunoglobulin-based semiselective IA in comparison to ABO-IA. Methods. Eight ABO-IA-treated transplant candidates and 39 patients subjected to semiselective IA for a variety of different indications outside the context of ABO-incompatible transplantation were included. Antibody patterns (IgG, IgG1-4 subclasses, IgM, C4d-fixing reactivities) were analysed applying conventional agglutination testing and flow cytometry. Results. As assessed by sensitive flow cytometric antibody detection, ABO-IA-based desensitization led to a profound even though often incomplete reduction of anti-A/B reactivities. Persistent complement- or non-complement-fixing reactivities, however, were not associated with transplant rejection or capillary C4d deposition. Single sessions of semiselective IA turned out to be more effective than ABO-IA in decreasing levels of anti-A/B IgG [median reduction to 28 versus 59% (ABO-IA) of baseline values, P < 0.001). In contrast, BG-specific IgM (74 versus 30%, P < 0.001) and IgG3 (72 versus 42%, P < 0.05) were reduced to a lesser extent, without differences between tested adsorber types. Analysis of four consecutive IA sessions revealed that inferior efficiency could not be overcome by serial treatment. Conclusion. Our observation of limited adsorption capacities regarding distinct BG-specific Ig (sub)classes suggests caution in applying semiselective IA techniques in ABO-incompatible kidney transplantatio

Alloimmune Risk Stratification for Kidney Transplant Rejection

Different types of kidney transplantations are performed worldwide, including biologically diverse donor/recipient combinations, which entail distinct patient/graft outcomes. Thus, proper immunological and non-immunological risk stratification should be considered, especially for patients included in interventional randomized clinical trials. This paper was prepared by a working group within the European Society for Organ Transplantation, which submitted a Broad Scientific Advice request to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) relating to clinical trial endpoints in kidney transplantation. After collaborative interactions, the EMA sent its final response in December 2020, highlighting the following: 1) transplantations performed between human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical donors and recipients carry significantly lower immunological risk than those from HLA-mismatched donors; 2) for the same allogeneic molecular HLA mismatch load, kidney grafts from living donors carry significantly lower immunological risk because they are better preserved and therefore less immunogenic than grafts from deceased donors; 3) single-antigen bead testing is the gold standard to establish the repertoire of serological sensitization and is used to define the presence of a recipient’s circulating donor-specific antibodies (HLA-DSA); 4) molecular HLA mismatch analysis should help to further improve organ allocation compatibility and stratify immunological risk for primary alloimmune activation, but without consensus regarding which algorithm and cut-off to use it is difficult to integrate information into clinical practice/study design; 5) further clinical validation of other immune assays, such as those measuring anti-donor cellular memory (T/B cell ELISpot assays) and non–HLA-DSA, is needed; 6) routine clinical tests that reliably measure innate immune alloreactivity are lacking.</p

Allograft rejection is associated with development of functional IgE specific for donor MHC antigens.

BACKGROUND: Donor-specific antibodies of the IgG isotype are measured routinely for diagnostic purposes in renal transplant recipients and are associated with antibody-mediated rejection and long-term graft loss. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether MHC-specific antibodies of the IgE isotype are induced during allograft rejection. METHODS: Anti-MHC/HLA IgE levels were measured in sera of mice grafted with skin or heart transplants from various donor strains and in sera of kidney transplant patients with high levels of HLA IgG. Mediator release was triggered in vitro by stimulating basophils that were coated with murine or human IgE-positive serum, respectively, with specific recombinant MHC/HLA antigens. Kidney tissue samples obtained from organ donors were analyzed by using flow cytometry for cells expressing the high-affinity receptor for IgE (FcεRI). RESULTS: Donor MHC class I- and MHC class II-specific IgE was found on acute rejection of skin and heart grafts in several murine strain combinations, as well as during chronic antibody-mediated heart graft rejection. Anti-HLA IgE, including donor HLA class I and II specificities, was identified in a group of sensitized transplant recipients. Murine and human anti-MHC/HLA IgE triggered mediator release in coated basophils on stimulation with specific MHC/HLA antigens. HLA-specific IgE was not linked to atopy, and allergen-specific IgE present in allergic patients did not cross-react with HLA antigens. FcεRI+ cells were found in the human renal cortex and medulla and provide targets for HLA-specific IgE. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that MHC/HLA-specific IgE develops during an alloresponse and is functional in mediating effector mechanisms

Allograft and patient survival after sequential HSCT and kidney transplantation from the same donor - A multicenter analysis

Tolerance induction through simultaneous hematopoietic stem cell and renal transplantation has shown promising results, but it is hampered by the toxicity of preconditioning therapies and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Moreover, renal function has never been compared to conventionally transplanted patients, thus, whether donor-specific tolerance results in improved outcomes remains unanswered. We collected follow-up data of published cases of renal transplantations after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from the same donor and compared patient and transplant kidney survival as well as function with caliper-matched living-donor renal transplantations from the Austrian dialysis and transplant registry. Overall, 22 tolerant and 20 control patients were included (median observation period 10 years [range 11 months to 26 years]). In the tolerant group, no renal allograft loss was reported, whereas 3 were lost in the control group. Median creatinine levels were 85 μmol/l (interquartile range [IQR] 72-99) in the tolerant cohort and 118 μmol/l (IQR 99-143) in the control group. Mixed linear-model showed around 29% lower average creatinine levels throughout follow-up in the tolerant group (P &lt; .01). Our data clearly show stable renal graft function without long-term immunosuppression for many years, suggesting permanent donor-specific tolerance. Thus sequential transplantation might be an alternative approach for future studies targeting tolerance induction in renal allograft recipients