4.4 Article

Pre-transplant soluble CD30 in combination with total DSA but not pre-transplant C1q-DSA predicts antibody-mediated graft loss in presensitized high-risk kidney transplant recipients

期刊

HLA
卷 87, 期 2, 页码 89-99

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/tan.12735

关键词

antibody-mediated rejection; B-cell; C1q; donor-specific antibodies; human leukocyte antigen; increased soluble CD30; kidney; rejection; transplantation

资金

  1. Dietmar-Hopp Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Presensitized kidney transplant recipients are at high-risk for early antibody-mediated rejection. We studied the impact of pre- and post-transplant donor-specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies (DSA) and T-cell-activation on the occurrence of antibody-mediated rejection episodes (AMR) and graft loss (AMR-GL) in a unique cohort of 80 desensitized high-risk kidney transplant recipients. Patients with pre- transplant DSA demonstrated more AMR episodes than patients without DSA, but did not show a significantly increased rate of AMR-GL. The rates of AMR and AMR-GL were not significantly increased in patients with complement split product (C1q)-binding pre-transplant DSA. Pre-transplant C1q-DSA became undetectable post-transplant in 11 of 13 (85%) patients; 2 (18%) of these 11 patients showed AMR but no AMR-GL. In contrast, the post-transplant presence of C1q-DSA was associated with significantly higher rates of AMR (86 vs 33 vs 0%; P < 0.001) and AMR-GL (86 vs 0 vs 0%; log-rank P < 0.001) compared with post-transplant DSA without C1q-binding or the absence of DSA. Patients with both pre- transplant DSA and evidence of pre-transplant T-cell-activation as indicated by soluble CD30-positivity showed a significantly increased risk for AMR-GL [HR = 11.1, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 1.68-73.4; log-rank P = 0.013]. In these high-risk patients, AMR-GL was associated with total DSA in combination with T-cell-activation pre-transplant, and de novo or persistent C1q-binding DSA post-transplant.

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

4.4
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