4.2 Article

Can solid phase assays be better utilized to measure efficacy of antibody removal therapies?

期刊

HUMAN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 77, 期 8, 页码 624-630

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2016.05.025

关键词

AMR; Desensitization; HLA antibody; Luminex; MFI; SAB; Titer

资金

  1. Thermo-Fisher - Denis Glotz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antibody removal therapies are used for patients with antibody-mediated-rejection or those requiring desensitization to become transplantable. Accurate measurement of antibody levels prior to, and during treatment, are required to choose the best therapeutic approach, and to provide measure of treatment efficacy. Currently, the FDA does not regard solid-phase assays for HLA-antibody identification as a reliable surrogate-marker for treatment efficacy. Serum samples from 40 patients (58 assays; >2200 positive data points) undergoing antibody removal-therapies were tested as sample-pairs, pre- and post-treatment. MFI values of IgG and C1q single-antigen-bead assays were compared with antibody titer values (serial dilutions). Antibody reduction was tracked and the differences in pre-to-post-treatment values were calculated as delta-reduction of antibody levels. Dynamic patterns of titration studies reduced effects of serum-inherent inhibitory factors (prozone-like); eliminated over-saturation limitations, and provided better estimation of antibody-binding strength compared with the other methods. Moreover, delta-reduction of antibody values using titration studies was significantly more uniform compared with either IgG or C1q tests. Analyzing antibody results using only C1q positive or only higher MFI values did not change the overall magnitude of results. Overall, titration studies provided better estimate of responsiveness to treatment and thus can serve as companion to monitoring efficacy of antibody-removal therapies. (C) 2016 American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据