4.1 Review

The role of the histocompatibility laboratory in desensitization for transplantation

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 398-402

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0b013e32832c5983

Keywords

antibody monitoring; desensitization; HLA-specific antibodies; intravenous immunoglobulin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review The ability of histocompatibility laboratories to define and monitor human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-specific antibodies via highly sensitive immunoassays has been a major contributing factor in the development of desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible transplants. This review will focus on the laboratory's role in desensitization and the types of tests needed for determining the specificity and strength of antibodies to donor HILA pretransplant, during treatment, and after transplant. Recent findings Increasingly, solid-phase immunoassays that use purified HILA molecules are providing sensitive characterization of HLA-specific antibodies. Assay parameters, such as median fluorescence intensity, can be correlated with cross-match results and clinical outcomes, and subsequently used to monitor antibody status in patients undergoing desensitization. The strength of donor HLA-specific antibody, measured by cross-match and/or solid phase assays, is used to determine the likelihood of successful desensitization, as well as the risk of posttransplant antibody-mediated rejection. Summary Histocompatibility laboratories are essential components of desensitization programs. Thorough antibody characterization and serial monitoring of changes in antibody status are needed pretreatment, during treatment and after transplant. Because clinical decisions rely heavily on changes in antibody specificity and strength, desensitization should not be undertaken without access to appropriate histocompatibility testing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available