4.6 Article

Prognostic tools to assess candidacy for and efficacy of antibody-removal therapy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 381-390

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15007

关键词

alloantibody; clinical research; practice; desensitization; histocompatibility; immunosuppression; immune modulation; intravenous immunoglobulin; IVIg; kidney transplantation; nephrology; plasmapheresis; plasma exchange; rejection: antibody-mediated (ABMR); translational research; science

资金

  1. Terasaki Memorial Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, the ability to predict or monitor the efficacy of HLA antibody-removal therapies is deficient. We previously reported that titration studies are a consistent and accurate means of assessing antibody strength. To test whether titration studies can also predict which patients are better candidates for desensitization, we studied 38 patients from 3 centers (29 receiving plasmapheresis/low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg]; 9 patients receiving high-dose IVIg). For patients undergoing plasmapheresis/low-dose IVIg, antibody titer reduction correlated with number of treatment cycles for both class I and II antibodies but only up to approximately 4 cycles. Reduction in titer slowed with additional cycles, suggesting a limit to the efficacy of this approach. Furthermore, initial titer (predesensitization) can guide the selection of candidates for successful antibody-removal treatment. In our experience, patients with antibodies at an initial titer>1:512 could not be reduced to the goal of a negative lymphocyte crossmatch, corresponding to a 1:16 titer, despite a significant increase in the number of treatment cycles. Change in mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) value did not correlate with success of treatment if initial MFI values were>10 000, likely due to single antigen bead saturation. Overall, we present a potential prognostic tool to predict candidacy and a monitoring tool to assess efficacy of desensitization treatment.

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

4.6
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