4.6 Article

Non-HLA Antibodies May Accelerate Immune Responses After Intestinal and Multivisceral Transplantation

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 101, Issue 1, Pages 141-149

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001439

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Non-HLA alloantibodies and autoantibodies are involved in allograft rejection in kidney and heart transplantation. Their role in intestinal transplantation has not yet been described. We examined the development of antiangiotensin II type I receptor antibodies (anti-AT1R) and antiendothelin type A receptor antibodies associated with the clinical course and histopathological findings of intestinal transplantation recipients. Methods. Thirty-seven patients underwent intestinal or multivisceral transplantation. Non-HLA antibodies (non-HLAabs) were screened in 29 transplant recipients. Antibody-levels greater than 12 U/L were considered positive and were evaluated retrospectively regarding rejection episodes. Results. Twenty patients developed anti-AT1R and/or antiendothelin type A receptor antibodies (non-HLAabs group), 9 did not (control group). The non-HLAabs group had a higher rate of allograft rejection than controls (80% vs 55%), especially a higher rate of antibodymediated rejections (55% vs 11%, P < 0.01) with detection of donor-specific anti-HLAabs. All rejection episodes in the non-HLAabs group appeared around the time of positive non-HLAabs detection. Five patients had acute cellular rejections at the time of non-HLAabs development, 4 had viral infections. Conclusions. Our data suggest that antibody-mediated mechanisms targeting antigens beyond HLA may trigger and accelerate immune responses. Given the possibility of pharmacologic targeting of non-HLA receptors, future studies will focus on the explanation of mechanisms how non-HLAabs may enhance rejection and affect long-term allograft survival.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available