5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Carpe diem-Time to transition from empiric to precision medicine in kidney transplantation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Identifying specific causes of kidney allograft loss.

          The causes of kidney allograft loss remain unclear. Herein we investigated these causes in 1317 conventional kidney recipients. The cause of graft loss was determined by reviewing clinical and histologic information the latter available in 98% of cases. During 50.3 +/- 32.6 months of follow-up, 330 grafts were lost (25.0%), 138 (10.4%) due to death with function, 39 (2.9%) due to primary nonfunction and 153 (11.6%) due to graft failure censored for death. The latter group was subdivided by cause into: glomerular diseases (n = 56, 36.6%); fibrosis/atrophy (n = 47, 30.7%); medical/surgical conditions (n = 25, 16.3%); acute rejection (n = 18, 11.8%); and unclassifiable (n = 7, 4.6%). Glomerular pathologies leading to failure included recurrent disease (n = 23), transplant glomerulopathy (n = 23) and presumed nonrecurrent disease (n = 10). In cases with fibrosis/atrophy a specific cause(s) was identified in 81% and it was rarely attributable to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) toxicity alone (n = 1, 0.7%). Contrary to current concepts, most cases of kidney graft loss have an identifiable cause that is not idiopathic fibrosis/atrophy or CNI toxicity. Glomerular pathologies cause the largest proportion of graft loss and alloinmunity remains the most common mechanism leading to failure. This study identifies targets for investigation and intervention that may result in improved kidney transplantation outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Class II HLA epitope matching-A strategy to minimize de novo donor-specific antibody development and improve outcomes.

            De novo donor-specific antibody (dnDSA) develops in 15-25% of renal transplant recipients within 5 years of transplantation and is associated with 40% lower graft survival at 10 years. HLA epitope matching is a novel strategy that may minimize dnDSA development. HLAMatchmaker software was used to characterize epitope mismatches at 395 potential HLA-DR/DQ/DP conformational epitopes for 286 donor-recipient pairs. Epitope specificities were assigned using single antigen HLA bead analysis and correlated with known monoclonal alloantibody epitope targets. Locus-specific epitope mismatches were more numerous in patients who developed HLA-DR dnDSA alone (21.4 vs. 13.2, p < 0.02) or HLA-DQ dnDSA alone (27.5 vs. 17.3, p < 0.001). An optimal threshold for epitope mismatches (10 for HLA-DR, 17 for HLA-DQ) was defined that was associated with minimal development of Class II dnDSA. Applying these thresholds, zero and 2.7% of patients developed dnDSA against HLA-DR and HLA-DQ, respectively, after a median of 6.9 years. Epitope specificity analysis revealed that 3 HLA-DR and 3 HLA-DQ epitopes were independent multivariate predictors of Class II dnDSA. HLA-DR and DQ epitope matching outperforms traditional low-resolution antigen-based matching and has the potential to minimize the risk of de novo Class II DSA development, thereby improving long-term graft outcome.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incidence and impact of de novo donor-specific alloantibody in primary renal allografts.

              To date, limited information is available describing the incidence and impact of de novo donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies (dnDSA) in the primary renal transplant patient. This report details the dnDSA incidence and actual 3-year post-dnDSA graft outcomes. The study includes 189 consecutive nonsensitized, non-HLA-identical patients who received a primary kidney transplant between March 1999 and March 2006. Protocol testing for DSA via LABScreen single antigen beads (One Lambda) was done before transplantation and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after transplantation then annually and when clinically indicated. Of 189 patients, 47 (25%) developed dnDSA within 10 years. The 5-year posttransplantation cumulative incidence was 20%, with the largest proportion of patients developing dnDSA in the first posttransplantation year (11%). Young patients (18-35 years old at transplantation), deceased-donor transplant recipients, pretransplantation HLA (non-DSA)-positive patients, and patients with a DQ mismatch were the most likely to develop dnDSA. From DSA appearance, 9% of patients lost their graft at 1 year. Actual 3-year death-censored post-dnDSA graft loss was 24%. We conclude that 11% of the patients without detectable DSA at transplantation will have detectable DSA at 1 year, and over the next 4 years, the incidence of dnDSA will increase to 20%. After dnDSA development, 24% of the patients will fail within 3 years. Given these findings, future trials are warranted to determine if treatment of dnDSA-positive patients can prevent allograft failure.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Transplantation
                Am J Transplant
                Wiley
                16006135
                July 2018
                July 2018
                April 30 2018
                : 18
                : 7
                : 1615-1625
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Internal Medicine; Max Rady College of Medicine; University of Manitoba; Winnipeg MB Canada
                [2 ]Diagnostic Services of Manitoba; Winnipeg MB Canada
                [3 ]Department of Immunology; Max Rady College of Medicine; University of Manitoba; Winnipeg MB Canada
                [4 ]Department of Pathology; Max Rady College of Medicine; University of Manitoba; Winnipeg MB Canada
                Article
                10.1111/ajt.14746
                29603637
                0f28b972-aa47-4aa9-87ef-77ab1a68dca4
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article