Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Attending Rounds
You have accessRestricted Access

Approach to the Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Candidate

Douglas S. Keith and Gayle M. Vranic
CJASN April 2016, 11 (4) 684-693; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.05930615
Douglas S. Keith
Division of Nephrology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gayle M. Vranic
Division of Nephrology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

For patients with ESRD, kidney transplant offers significant survival and quality-of-life advantages compared with dialysis. But for patients seeking transplant who are highly sensitized, wait times have traditionally been long and options limited. The approach to the highly sensitized candidate for kidney transplant has changed substantially over time owing to new advances in desensitization, options for paired donor exchange (PDE), and changes to the deceased-donor allocation system. Initial evaluation should focus on determining living-donor availability because a compatible living donor is always the best option. However, for most highly sensitized candidates this scenario is unlikely. For candidates with an incompatible donor, PDE can improve the prospects of finding a compatible living donor but for many highly sensitized patients the probability of finding a match in the relatively small pools of donors in PDE programs is limited. Desensitization of a living donor/recipient pair with low levels of incompatibility is another reasonable approach. But for pairs with high levels of pathologic HLA antibodies, outcomes after desensitization for the patient and allograft are less optimal. Determining the degree of sensitization by calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) is critical in counseling the highly sensitized patient on expected wait times to deceased-donor transplant. For candidates with a high likelihood of finding a compatible deceased donor in a reasonable time frame, waiting for a kidney is a good strategy. For the candidate without a living donor and with a low probability of finding a deceased-donor match, desensitization on the waiting list can be considered. The approach to the highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate must be individualized and requires careful discussion among the transplant center, patient, and referring nephrologist.

  • kidney transplantation
  • immunology
  • allografts
  • HLA antigens
  • humans
  • kidney
  • kidney failure
  • chronic’ living donors
  • quality of life
  • renal dialysis

Case Presentation

A 38-year-old black man with type 2 diabetes and ESRD due to diabetic nephropathy presented for evaluation for a second kidney transplant. He was receiving hemodialysis for 1 year before undergoing his first deceased-donor kidney transplant in 1997. His immediate post-transplant course was uncomplicated, without known episodes of rejection. The graft began to fail about 4 years before his resumption of dialysis. A renal allograft biopsy at that time showed calcineurin inhibitor toxicity and chronic allograft nephropathy but no acute rejection. He resumed peritoneal dialysis in 2010, at which time his immunosuppression was weaned to low-dose prednisone, 5 mg daily. He is blood type A, which portends wait times of 3–4 years in our organ procurement organization (OPO), the geographically defined unit of organ allocation. An historical panel-reactive antibody (PRA) on full immunosuppression was 0% but repeat testing at current evaluation reveals a calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) of 100% with multiple HLA antibodies against class II antigens. See candidate HLA typing in Table 1. His other medical problems include obesity (body mass index, 40 kg/m2), hypertension without significant end-organ damage, and diabetic neuropathy. He has no potential living donors.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

HLA typing for renal transplant candidate

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Unacceptable antigens for renal transplant candidate

His physical examination was unremarkable. A right-lower-quadrant renal allograft was nontender. After completion of routine pretransplant evaluation, the candidate was placed on the active waiting list for transplant. At the time of implementation of the new organ allocation system in December 2014, he had accrued 48 months of waiting time and had not received any organ offers.

HLA Testing in Kidney Transplantation

HLA molecules are highly polymorphic and vary considerably among individuals within a population. They are the principal mechanism by which the immune system identifies self from nonself and not only are critical in responding to commonly encountered foreign invaders, such as viruses and bacteria, but are the key instigator in the allograft rejection response. Exposure to nonself HLA antigens can lead to formation of anti-HLA antibodies, a process known as sensitization. This occurs primarily via three types of exposure (listed here by increasing sensitizing potential): blood transfusions, pregnancy, and solid organ transplant. Rare cases of sensitization can occur without these events and are thought to be due to crossreactive antigens from other exposures, such as viruses. Approximately 15% of wait-listed candidates have some degree of sensitization. High levels of sensitization are associated with longer wait times and increased likelihood of being removed from or dying while on the wait list (1).

For the sensitized renal transplant candidate, finding a donor for whom the candidate has no or very low levels of preformed HLA antibodies is the preferred approach and is associated with better allograft outcomes (2–5). The HLA antigen system is broken down into two broad categories based on their expression on cell membranes and their peptide configuration. Class I antigens (HLA-A, -B, and -C antigens) are expressed on the surface of all nucleated cells. Class II antigens (HLA-DR, -DQ, and –DP) are normally expressed only on antigen presenting cells, but under the influence of cytokines can be expressed on other epithelial and endothelial cells, and therefore can be the targets for immune-mediated injury. The genes for the class I and II HLA types are closely linked and found on the short arm of chromosome 6 in humans; although crossover between chromosomes can occur, most offspring inherit one haplotype of class I and II alleles from each parent (6,7).

The modalities available to characterize the recipient’s pretransplant immunologic risk and detect preformed HLA antibodies have evolved over time. In their seminal work in 1969, Patel and Terasaki described the first test to evaluate for the presence of preformed antibodies, known as the complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) crossmatch (8). A positive CDC crossmatch very effectively predicted the risk of hyperacute rejection, and excluding recipient/donor pairs on the basis of this test dramatically reduced this dreaded complication. With the use of flow cytometry, in 1983 the flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM) became available, increasing sensitivity for antibody detection (9). In the last 15 years, solid-phase assays, including the Luminex platform, have allowed the detection of specific HLA antibody types (10). If the specificity of the HLA antibody is against the donor, it is known as a donor-specific antibody (DSA). The basic techniques for detection of HLA antibodies are outlined in Table 3. Even in the setting of a negative crossmatch, presence of DSA is associated with decreased allograft survival (11–14). Research is ongoing to better define the risk of HLA antigens in solid organ transplant, including differences in risk by HLA IgG subtype and importance of complement binding with C1q (15,16).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Techniques for detection of HLA antibodies

The targets for antibodies directed against HLA molecule are known as epitopes. An epitope typically but not always consists of a three–amino acid sequence on the HLA molecule that is exposed on the exterior of the molecule (17). Each HLA molecule has multiple antibody-binding sites, and different polymorphisms of the HLA molecule may share epitopes, permitting crossreactivity between HLA types. These shared epitopes between HLA molecules are the basis of the crossreactive groups, whereby development of antibodies against one HLA molecule can result in reactivity against multiple HLA types. This additive increase in presensitization can significantly hamper our ability find acceptable organ matches.

To better quantify the odds of finding an acceptable match within the existing donor pool, the cPRA was developed (18). This differs from the traditional PRA testing in which candidate serum is tested against lymphocytes from randomly selected people from the population, and the result is expressed as a percentage of the randomly selected lymphocyte donors with reactivity. The advent of solid-phase assay testing now allows for the identification of the specific HLA antibodies produced by a candidate. Many centers use the Luminex platform, which allows for detection of antibody as a semiquantitative measure reported as mean fluorescent intensity (MFI). Given the variability in the test results, this number provides a rough estimation of antibody levels, with lower MFI values indicating lower levels of circulating antibody and higher MFI values suggesting higher levels and increased risk of alloimmune response. HLA antibodies detected at a level anticipated to result in a high rate of rejection in the serum of candidates are designated as unacceptable. Through use of HLA frequency data from the donor population in the United States and the unacceptable HLA antigens for a potential candidate, the probability of finding a donor can be determined. The cPRA is the percentage of donors the candidate will likely react against and is expressed as a percentage. Thus, if the candidate cPRA is 75%, the expected odds that a donor would be crossmatch negative is 25%.

Criteria for determining unacceptable HLA antigens vary widely by center and have major implications for finding acceptable donor matches. The sweet spot for designating unacceptable antigens is to set the levels just low enough to avoid positive crossmatches but high enough to allow the candidate to receive as many organ offers as possible. At our center, we designate unacceptable antigens at MFI values exceeding 4000. These unacceptable antigens are listed in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) databases; recipients will not be eligible for donors with these HLA types and will be automatically excluded from match runs. This allows for a “virtual crossmatch” to predict crossmatch results during organ allocation. Implementation of the cPRA has improved efficiency of organ allocation by decreasing the number of positive crossmatches, which must still be performed before transplantation, and late organ declines (19,20). The unacceptable antigens for our renal transplant candidate are shown in Table 2.

Evolving Approach to the Highly Sensitized Candidate

A primary goal in transplant is to find donor/recipient pairs with the least amount of incompatibility. The options available to the sensitized candidate are greater if he or she has a living donor, even if the donor is incompatible. In the highly sensitized recipient, an organ with a negative crossmatch may not be easily attainable and desensitization to lower the levels of preformed antibodies to prevent early, hyperacute, and accelerated acute rejection may be the only feasible option for transplant. While hyperacute rejection is rare in the desensitized candidate, the rates of acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and allograft loss are higher (21). Despite the less than ideal allograft outcomes in desensitized recipients, they have a survival advantage with transplant compared with dialysis in most cases (22). Figure 1 outlines the basic approach to the highly sensitized candidate for renal transplant.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Algorithm for the management of the highly sensitized patient seeking kidney transplant. ‡There is no predefined level of incompatibility that is considered insurmountable and decision to pursue desensitization should be individualized for the potential recipient considering medical eligibility, degree of sensitization to the donor, and financial coverage. This decision making is highly center specific. The risks of early graft failure are significantly increased in those pairs with positive CDC crossmatch prior to desensitization and pursuing living donor transplantation in this setting should be attempted with caution. Paired donor exchange may offer candidates the opportunity to seek a more compatible donor, possibly obviating the risks and costs associated with desensitization (14). CDC, complement-dependent cytotoxicity.

Candidates with mild to moderate levels of sensitization can expect only modest increases in wait times to deceased-donor transplant. The theoretical number of potential donor offers needed to have a high probability of an acceptable match can be determined using the following equation: Embedded Imagewhere n=number of potential donors (23).

For a candidate with a cPRA of 95%, the number of donors needed in order to have a 95% chance of finding an acceptable match is about 60. For lower cPRA values, that number is considerably less. For a blood type O candidate with a cPRA of 95% who has attained enough wait time to be near the top of the transplant list in an average-sized OPO with 60 blood type O donors a year, the candidate could reasonably be expected to receive an organ within one year. Because blood types are not distributed equally among the population, recipients with less frequently occurring blood types can expect longer waits. Current blood type distribution among donors is blood type O, 46%; A, 38%; B, 12%; and AB, 4%. The current allocation system allows AB candidates to share blood type A donor organs, effectively making blood type B the most disadvantaged candidate group in terms of donor pool size. For candidates with cPRAs>95% and especially those that approach a cPRA of 100%, the number of donors needed in order to have a high probability of finding an acceptable match increases exponentially. For instance, to achieve a 95% probability of finding an acceptable donor, a candidate with a cPRA of 99% would need to be part of 300 potential donor match runs, while a candidate with a cPRA of 99.5%, 99.9%, or 99.99% would need to be part of 600, 3000, and 30,000 match runs, respectively (Table 4). For purposes of listing and allocation, the cPRA is considered as a rounded integer value. Within the 100% cPRA designation, the probability of a match varies enormously according to the unrounded value. Approximately 13% of the 100% cPRA listed candidates have an unrounded cPRA≥99.99%. For these candidates, waiting on the list for an acceptable match may be futile.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Estimated number of match runs needed to have a 95% probability of finding an acceptable donor based on candidate cPRA

Among sensitized candidates, distribution of cPRA values is not uniform (Figure 2). Sensitized candidates with cPRA>95% make up approximately 20% of the sensitized candidates and peaks at 100% cPRA. This occurs for two reasons. First, highly sensitized candidates are less likely to find donors and accumulate on the list, while less sensitized individuals are more efficiently transplanted and removed from the candidate pool. Second, as stated earlier, there are many shared epitopes between HLA types, and sensitization due to exposure to one HLA type can result in sensitivity to multiple HLA types, leading to high levels of sensitization. For the purposes of this discussion, highly sensitized candidates are defined as those with a cPRA>95%.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Distribution of calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) values for sensitized candidates on the waiting list for kidney transplantation in the United States as of August 31, 2013 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The distribution of sensitization levels among candidates with a cPRA≥1% is not uniform. More than 20% of sensitized candidates have measured cPRA levels ≥95%.

To improve transplant rates among highly sensitized patients, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) implemented key changes to the kidney allocation system in December 2014 (24). Efforts were made to increase the pool of potential donors and improve chances of organ offers. First, a new sliding-scale point system was implemented, which awards points based on the cPRA level (Figure 3) (25). The additional points awarded for sensitization begins at a cPRA of 20% and increases exponentially as the cPRA approaches 100%, ensuring that the very highly sensitized contend for offers as soon as they are listed. The previous system only awarded four points to anyone with a cPRA≥80%. Second, efforts were made to expand the pool of available donors. While most organs are shared on a local level by OPOs, candidates with a cPRA of 99% have been offered priority access to donors at a regional level, generally increasing pool size by a factor of five, and candidates with a cPRA of 100% have priority access to donors at a national level, increasing the pool size by a factor of 50. Before the implementation of this policy, only about 2.5% of deceased-donor transplants went to patients with a cPRA>98%. With the policy change, the rate has increased to >13% of deceased-donor transplants, demonstrating the benefit of these changes in allocation policy for these traditionally hard-to-transplant patients (26).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Allocation points by calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) in the old versus new kidney allocation system. Candidates listed for kidney transplant receive one point for each year on the list. Under the old kidney allocation system, candidates with cPRA scores >80% received four additional allocation points. Under the new allocation system, additional points are awarded for sensitization on a sliding scale. Candidates with cPRA scores of 98%, 99%, and 100% receive 24.4, 50.1, and 202.1 points respectively.

Advances in Desensitization of the Highly Sensitized Candidate

Another tactic to improve the probability of transplant in the highly sensitized is to desensitize candidates waiting for an acceptable match on the deceased-donor waiting list. Pioneered by Dr. Stanley Jordan, protocols generally use infusions of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and rituximab to lower the titers of HLA antibodies in the candidate. After desensitization, the HLA antibody levels are rechecked using solid-phase antibody testing and the designation of the unacceptable antigens is modified according to the changes in HLA antibody levels. Lowering the number of unacceptable antigens decreases the cPRA and improves the chances of finding an acceptable donor. Desensitization on the wait list is labor intensive and costly, requires careful serologic monitoring, and necessitates exception to allocation rules from the OPTN. While some studies of this approach have shown improved transplant rates in highly sensitized candidates with acceptable post-transplant outcomes, albeit with a significant rate of early AMR (27,28), other studies have not replicated these results in highly sensitized candidates with cPRA levels >85%–90% (29–31).

The cost-effectiveness of this therapy must be balanced against the savings and health benefits associated with a successful kidney transplant compared with dialysis (32). Because this is not a use for these agents that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, payors may be reluctant to reimburse for treatments, so considerable effort is required to ensure that candidates are not burdened with unmanageable bills. Finally, and perhaps most important, the high cost of desensitization and tendency for antibody rebound after treatment requires that the candidates be near the top of the waiting list so as to contend for donor offers soon after treatment. For candidates who already have large amounts of waiting time, this is not an impediment. But for candidates who have not accumulated substantial time on the list, and whose high position on the waiting list is due to additional points given for sensitization, changing the unacceptable antigens in order to improve their chances of an offer also reduces their allocation points for sensitization; potentially moving them down the list and leading to loss of regional or national sharing priority. To overcome this issue, the OPTN has recommended that a variance from the allocation rules be obtained by the transplant center, which allows these candidates to keep the allocation points associated with their original, higher cPRA. The significant effort and resources needed to successfully implement this approach have limited its practice to only a few programs across the country.

Highly sensitized candidates with living donors have additional options for transplant with desensitization or paired donor exchange. If a candidate has an incompatible living donor, the recipient can be desensitized to allow direct donation or the pair can be enrolled in several national organizations (Alliance for Paired Donation, National Kidney Registry, or UNOS Kidney Paired Donation Program) that facilitate exchanges. As seen with recipients on the deceased-donor waiting list, the recipient’s unacceptable HLA antigens are identified and used to find donors in the paired exchange pool that have more favorable crossmatch results. The hope is to find a donor with both a negative CDC and FCXM; however, for the very highly sensitized this may be very difficult given the large pool size needed to find an acceptable match. For these candidates, considering ABO incompatible donor pairs will increase the pool size because the ABO barrier is much easier to overcome than HLA incompatibility. Alternatively, one could seek a donor/recipient pair within the exchange with more favorable crossmatch results and pursue desensitization (33). Data from multiple transplant centers engaged in desensitization of recipients with living donors in the United States showed that the poorest outcomes among living donor/recipient pairs is between pairs with a positive CDC crossmatch before desensitization. Those with a negative CDC crossmatch and just a positive FCXM, or with just a DSA by Luminex without a positive CDC or FCXM do much better (Figure 4) (14). Therefore, the crossmatch results and DSA determination are useful risk stratification tools of the donor/recipient pairs with regard to allograft outcomes. Given the limited pool size of the exchange programs, for the highly sensitized it is often necessary to consider incompatible donors within the exchange, where it is felt the incompatibility is amenable to desensitization.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

All-cause kidney allograft loss based on crossmatch and donor-specific antibody results. All-cause graft loss, by antibody strength. PCC, positive cytotoxic crossmatch; PFNC, positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch; PLNF, positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch. Reprinted from Orandi et al. (14), with permission.

Desensitization involves the use of treatment regimens that decrease the preformed antibody levels directed toward the potential donor. Typically, the goal of therapy is to reduce the antibody level so the FCXM is negative or lower than a predetermined cutoff. Many different protocols have been used with varying success; however, most combine plasmapheresis, IVIG, rituximab, bortezomib, and early initiation of maintenance immunosuppression several weeks before the transplant (21,34–37). Single-center case series using these approaches for transplant have shown that 25%–50% of transplants will have an early AMR (28,36,38–40). Most of these rejections can be successfully treated, but a high rate of transplant glomerulopathy and chronic AMR leading to accelerated allograft failure is common (41). Even with prolonged post-transplant blockage of the complement system with eculizumab, which is more effective at preventing acute AMR, chronic damage to the allograft occurs, presumably by complement-independent pathways (35,42). Thus, the optimal desensitization protocol before transplant and the best maintenance immunosuppression program afterward remains to be determined and persistence of low-level DSA appears to have deleterious long-term effects on the graft. The advantage of the desensitization approach (as opposed to simply waiting for a better match on the waiting list) is the possibility of expedited transplant without a prolonged wait on dialysis. The disadvantages, however, are many, including higher cost, increased risk of infections and complications related to the higher intensity of immunosuppression, and known inferior outcomes for both the patient and the transplanted organ. But for some patients, this may be their only option.

Case Discussion

This patient illustrates some of the issues confronted when attempting to transplant the highly sensitized candidate. The first issue concerns continuation of immunosuppression after a failed kidney transplant. This patient did not have an elevated PRA while receiving his maintenance immunosuppression but developed a high PRA after his immunosuppression was lowered. Weaning immunosuppression increases sensitization in many candidates (43,44), and the decision of whether to maintain a low dose of immunosuppression depends on the anticipated wait time to the next transplant, whether from a living or deceased donor. If the candidate has a living donor or the projected wait for a deceased donor is short so the candidate can be transplanted quickly, maintaining some immunosuppression to avoid sensitization should be considered. For candidates without a living donor who are projected to wait years for a transplant, the risks of infection due to continued immunosuppression while on dialysis may outweigh the potential benefit of preventing sensitization (45). In our particular candidate, the decision was made to wean his immunosuppression because of the expected long wait to deceased-donor transplant in the absence of a known living donor.

The implementation of the new kidney allocation system has revolutionized the way in which we manage the highly sensitized candidate. While our patient’s cPRA is listed as 100%, it was in reality 99.65%. To have a 95% chance of finding an acceptable match would require about 850 donor match runs. Approximately 11,500 deceased-donor kidneys are procured and transplanted from 6000 donors in a given year in the United States. With the significant advantage gained under the new allocation system, waiting on the list for a deceased donor was a good option for him. Desensitization, with its additional costs and complications, was avoided as a result of the benefits of the national priority and sharing given to highly sensitized candidates.

After implementation of the new allocation system in December 2014, the patient received a deceased-donor kidney transplant within 2 months (1 A, 1 B, and 1 DR mismatch). The B and T cell FCXM were negative before transplant. The patient received induction immunotherapy with methylprednisolone and thymoglobulin, 6 mg/kg. The patient did have several low-level DSAs, all MFI <1500. For this he was preemptively treated with one dose of rituximab, 375 mg/m2, and four doses of IVIG, 0.5 g/kg, to prevent re-emergence of high levels of DSA and decrease risk of AMR. He is receiving a standard maintenance immunosuppressive regimen with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone with a serum creatinine of 1.4 mg/dl at 12 months after transplant.

Conclusions

  • (1) Every effort should be made to minimize incompatibility between donor and recipient.

  • (2) The new deceased-donor kidney allocation rules for candidates with a cPRA≥98% have significantly improved organ availability for highly sensitized candidates. For mild to moderately sensitized candidates in most OPOs, especially for common blood types, finding acceptable deceased donors is usually possible without large increases in waiting time.

  • (3) For candidates with a cPRA of 100%, knowing the unrounded cPRA value can help stratify the probability of finding a donor on the waiting list. For the recipient with a very high cPRA, such as 99.99%, the probability of finding a donor in a realistic time frame is extraordinarily low and desensitization may be the only feasible option for transplant; however, there is no guarantee that desensitization efforts will be successful.

  • (4) Candidates with incompatible living donors have additional options through paired exchange and desensitization to their incompatible donor.

  • (5) Predesensitization crossmatches and DSA determination are useful risk stratification tools for graft outcomes. Recipients with high levels of sensitization to their donor are at higher risk of rejection, require more immunosuppression, and have less optimal allograft outcomes. This should be factored into the decision about whether to desensitize versus having the candidate wait for a more compatible deceased donor offer.

Questions

Dr. Mitchell Rosner (chair of medicine): How might you have approached your case study patient if his cPRA had been much higher, such as one of your listed patients with a cPRA >99.99% that you mention?

Dr. Keith: The approach to our patient should he have had a cPRA of 99.999% would have been quite different. Even with the additional 202 allocation points and national sharing for kidneys, meaning that he would have first priority for any organ that became available in the United States, his anticipated likelihood of receiving a deceased donor organ over the next 10 years is <25%. In this case, desensitization on the wait list would need to be considered.

Dr. Brendan Bowman (assistant professor of medicine): You mention that blood type and its frequency in the population can influence the options for your highly sensitized patients. How does this affect your patients with blood types B and AB, which are much less common than types O and A?

Dr. Keith: The new kidney allocation system has markedly changed the prospects for transplant of our patients who do not have living donors. But it remains a numbers game. Blood type AB candidates are given access to the blood type A donor pool so they are not disadvantaged by their relative infrequency in the population. For blood type B candidates, the situation is much different. The number of donors a potential candidate could have access to in a given time period depends on the OPO size and blood type frequency. The average OPO procures about 100–110 donors per year, but this number varies considerably, ranging from 23 to 323 in 2012. In our OPO, we have 12–15 blood type B donors annually. For a blood type B candidate with a cPRA of 98%, the number of donors needed to have a 95% chance of finding a suitable match is about 150. Thus, it may take many years to get this person transplanted from the wait list, despite a sizeable allocation of points for sensitization. For smaller OPOs, the expected wait would be even longer. If the candidate’s cPRA was 99% or 100%, they would have access to regional and national priority sharing, respectively, so that would increase their access to donors and considerably improve their transplant prospects. So approaches to the highly sensitized candidate should be tailored not just to their degree of sensitization but to their expected pool of available donors, taking into account their blood type, OPO size, and whether they qualify for regional or national sharing. For those candidates who have long-anticipated waits, revisiting efforts to find living donors, multiply listing with transplant centers in different OPOs, or desensitization on the wait list should be considered.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

The data reported here have been supplied by the Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation as the contractor for the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy of or interpretation by the SRTR or the United States government.

This study used data from the SRTR. The SRTR data system includes data on all donor, wait-listed candidates, and transplant recipients in the United States, submitted by the members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, provides oversight to the activities of the OPTN and SRTR contractors.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Matas AJ,
    2. Smith JM,
    3. Skeans MA,
    4. Thompson B,
    5. Gustafson SK,
    6. Schnitzler MA,
    7. Stewart DE,
    8. Cherikh WS,
    9. Wainright JL,
    10. Snyder JJ,
    11. Israni AK,
    12. Kasiske BL
    : OPTN/SRTR 2012 annual data report: Kidney. Am J Transplant 14[Suppl 1]: 11–44, 2014
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Karuppan SS,
    2. Ohlman S,
    3. Möller E
    : The occurrence of cytotoxic and non-complement-fixing antibodies in the crossmatch serum of patients with early acute rejection episodes. Transplantation 54: 839–844, 1992
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Trpkov K,
    2. Campbell P,
    3. Pazderka F,
    4. Cockfield S,
    5. Solez K,
    6. Halloran PF
    : Pathologic features of acute renal allograft rejection associated with donor-specific antibody: Analysis using the Banff grading schema. Transplantation 61: 1586–1592, 1996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Karpinski M,
    2. Rush D,
    3. Jeffery J,
    4. Exner M,
    5. Regele H,
    6. Dancea S,
    7. Pochinco D,
    8. Birk P,
    9. Nickerson P
    : Flow cytometric crossmatching in primary renal transplant recipients with a negative anti-human globulin enhanced cytotoxicity crossmatch. J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 2807–2814, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Bray RA,
    2. Nickerson PW,
    3. Kerman RH,
    4. Gebel HM
    : Evolution of HLA antibody detection: Technology emulating biology. Immunol Res 29: 41–54, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Brenner BM,
    2. Levine SA
    1. Chandraker A,
    2. Lacomini JJ
    : The immune response to a transplanted organ: An overview. In: Brenner & Rector’s the Kidney, edited by Brenner BM, Levine SA, 8th Ed., Philadelphia, Elsevier Saunders, 2007, pp 2104–2111
  5. ↵
    1. Lakkis FG
    : Immunotherapy in Transplantation: Principles and Practice, edited by Kaplan B, Burckart GJ, Lakkis FG, West Sussex, UK, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp 3–9
  6. ↵
    1. Patel R,
    2. Terasaki PI
    : Significance of the positive crossmatch test in kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med 280: 735–739, 1969
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Garavoy M,
    2. Rheinschmidt M,
    3. Bigos M,
    4. Perkins H,
    5. Colombe B,
    6. Feduska N,
    7. Salvatierra O
    : Flow cytometry analysis: A high technology crossmatch technique facilitating transplantation. Transplant Proc 15: 1939–144, 1983
  8. ↵
    1. Gebel HM,
    2. Bray RA
    : HLA antibody detection with solid phase assays: Great expectations or expectations too great? Am J Transplant 14: 1964–1975, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Amico P,
    2. Hönger G,
    3. Mayr M,
    4. Steiger J,
    5. Hopfer H,
    6. Schaub S
    : Clinical relevance of pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies detected by single-antigen flow-beads. Transplantation 87: 1681–1688, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lefaucheur C,
    2. Loupy A,
    3. Hill GS,
    4. Andrade J,
    5. Nochy D,
    6. Antoine C,
    7. Gautreau C,
    8. Charron D,
    9. Glotz D,
    10. Suberbielle-Boissel C
    : Preexisting donor-specific HLA antibodies predict outcome in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 21: 1398–1406, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Caro-Oleas JL,
    2. González-Escribano MF,
    3. Gentil-Govantes MA,
    4. Acevedo MJ,
    5. González-Roncero FM,
    6. Blanco GB,
    7. Núñez-Roldán A
    : Clinical relevance of anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies detected by Luminex assay in the development of rejection after renal transplantation. Transplantation 94: 338–344, 2012
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Orandi BJ,
    2. Garonzik-Wang JM,
    3. Massie AB,
    4. Zachary AA,
    5. Montgomery JR,
    6. Van Arendonk KJ,
    7. Stegall MD,
    8. Jordan SC,
    9. Oberholzer J,
    10. Dunn TB,
    11. Ratner LE,
    12. Kapur S,
    13. Pelletier RP,
    14. Roberts JP,
    15. Melcher ML,
    16. Singh P,
    17. Sudan DL,
    18. Posner MP,
    19. El-Amm JM,
    20. Shapiro R,
    21. Cooper M,
    22. Lipkowitz GS,
    23. Rees MA,
    24. Marsh CL,
    25. Sankari BR,
    26. Gerber DA,
    27. Nelson PW,
    28. Wellen J,
    29. Bozorgzadeh A,
    30. Gaber AO,
    31. Montgomery RA,
    32. Segev DL
    : Quantifying the risk of incompatible kidney transplantation: A multicenter study. Am J Transplant 14: 1573–1580, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Konvalinka A,
    2. Tinckam K
    : Utility of HLA antibody testing in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 1489–1502, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Lefaucheur C,
    2. Viglietti D,
    3. Bentlejewski C,
    4. Duong van Huyen JP,
    5. Vernerey D,
    6. Aubert O,
    7. Verine J,
    8. Jouven X,
    9. Legendre C,
    10. Glotz D,
    11. Loupy A,
    12. Zeevi A
    : IgG donor-specific anti-human HLA antibody subclasses and kidney allograft antibody-mediated injury [published online ahead of print August 20, 2015]. J Am Soc Nephrol doi: 10.1681/ASN.2014111120
  13. ↵
    1. Tambur AR,
    2. Claas FHJ
    : HLA epitopes as viewed by antibodies: What is it all about? Am J Transplant 15: 1148–1154, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Cecka JM
    : Calculated PRA (CPRA): The new measure of sensitization for transplant candidates. Am J Transplant 10: 26–29, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Cecka JM,
    2. Kucheryavaya AY,
    3. Reinsmoen NL,
    4. Leffell MS
    : Calculated PRA: Initial results show benefits for sensitized patients and a reduction in positive crossmatches. Am J Transplant 11: 719–724, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Leffell MS
    : The calculated panel reactive antibody policy: An advancement improving organ allocation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 16: 404–409, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Marfo K,
    2. Lu A,
    3. Ling M,
    4. Akalin E
    : Desensitization protocols and their outcome. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 922–936, 2011
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Montgomery RA,
    2. Lonze BE,
    3. King KE,
    4. Kraus ES,
    5. Kucirka LM,
    6. Locke JE,
    7. Warren DS,
    8. Simpkins CE,
    9. Dagher NN,
    10. Singer AL,
    11. Zachary AA,
    12. Segev DL
    : Desensitization in HLA-incompatible kidney recipients and survival. N Engl J Med 365: 318–326, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Nahin P
    : Digital dice: Computational Solutions to Practical Probability Problems, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2008, p 30
  20. ↵
    1. Israni AK,
    2. Salkowski N,
    3. Gustafson S,
    4. Snyder JJ,
    5. Friedewald JJ,
    6. Formica RN,
    7. Wang X,
    8. Shteyn E,
    9. Cherikh W,
    10. Stewart D,
    11. Samana CJ,
    12. Chung A,
    13. Hart A,
    14. Kasiske BL
    : New national allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States and possible effect on patient outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 25: 1842–1848, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Formica R,
    2. Aeder M:
    The new kidney allocation system: Resources for protocols and processes webinar. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. April 24, 2014. Available at: https://www.transplantpro.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/KAS_Protocols_Processes_Slides_Script.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2015
  22. ↵
    Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network: Kidney Allocation System: “Out-of-the-gate” monitoring report. April 23, 2015. Available at http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/professional-education/kidney-allocation-system/. Accessed May 2015
  23. ↵
    1. Vo AA,
    2. Lukovsky M,
    3. Toyoda M,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Reinsmoen NL,
    6. Lai CH,
    7. Peng A,
    8. Villicana R,
    9. Jordan SC
    : Rituximab and intravenous immune globulin for desensitization during renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 359: 242–251, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Vo AA,
    2. Peng A,
    3. Toyoda M,
    4. Kahwaji J,
    5. Cao K,
    6. Lai CH,
    7. Reinsmoen NL,
    8. Villicana R,
    9. Jordan SC
    : Use of intravenous immune globulin and rituximab for desensitization of highly HLA-sensitized patients awaiting kidney transplantation. Transplantation 89: 1095–1102, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Alachkar N,
    2. Lonze BE,
    3. Zachary AA,
    4. Holechek MJ,
    5. Schillinger K,
    6. Cameron AM,
    7. Desai NM,
    8. Dagher NN,
    9. Segev DL,
    10. Montgomery RA,
    11. Singer AL
    : Infusion of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin fails to lower the strength of human leukocyte antigen antibodies in highly sensitized patients. Transplantation 94: 165–171, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Marfo K,
    2. Ling M,
    3. Bao Y,
    4. Calder B,
    5. Ye B,
    6. Hayde N,
    7. Greenstein S,
    8. Chapochnick-Friedman J,
    9. Glicklich D,
    10. de Boccardo G,
    11. Kinkhabwala M,
    12. Akalin E
    : Lack of effect in desensitization with intravenous immunoglobulin and rituximab in highly sensitized patients. Transplantation 94: 345–351, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Kozlowski T,
    2. Andreoni K
    : Limitations of rituximab/IVIg desensitization protocol in kidney transplantation; is this better than a tincture of time? Ann Transplant 16: 19–25, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Vo AA,
    2. Petrozzino J,
    3. Yeung K,
    4. Sinha A,
    5. Kahwaji J,
    6. Peng A,
    7. Villicana R,
    8. Mackowiak J,
    9. Jordan SC
    : Efficacy, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of desensitization using IVIG and rituximab. Transplantation 95: 852–858, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Montgomery RA
    : Renal transplantation across HLA and ABO antibody barriers: integrating paired donation into desensitization protocols. Am J Transplant 10: 449–457, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Sanoff SL,
    2. Balogun RA,
    3. Lobo PL
    : The role of therapeutic apheresis in high immunologic risk renal transplantation: a review of current trends. Semin Dial 25: 193–200, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Stegall MD,
    2. Diwan T,
    3. Raghavaiah S,
    4. Cornell LD,
    5. Burns J,
    6. Dean PG,
    7. Cosio FG,
    8. Gandhi MJ,
    9. Kremers W,
    10. Gloor JM
    : Terminal complement inhibition decreases antibody-mediated rejection in sensitized renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 11: 2405–2413, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Stegall MD,
    2. Gloor J,
    3. Winters JL,
    4. Moore SB,
    5. Degoey S
    : A comparison of plasmapheresis versus high-dose IVIG desensitization in renal allograft recipients with high levels of donor specific alloantibody. Am J Transplant 6: 346–351, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Philogene MC,
    2. Sikorski P,
    3. Montgomery RA,
    4. Leffell MS,
    5. Zachary AA
    : Differential effect of bortezomib on HLA class I and class II antibody. Transplantation 98: 660–665, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Gloor JM,
    2. DeGoey SR,
    3. Pineda AA,
    4. Moore SB,
    5. Prieto M,
    6. Nyberg SL,
    7. Larson TS,
    8. Griffin MD,
    9. Textor SC,
    10. Velosa JA,
    11. Schwab TR,
    12. Fix LA,
    13. Stegall MD
    : Overcoming a positive crossmatch in living-donor kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 3: 1017–1023, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Thielke J,
    2. DeChristopher PJ,
    3. Sankary H,
    4. Oberholzer J,
    5. Testa G,
    6. Benedetti E
    : Highly successful living donor kidney transplantation after conversion to negative of a previously positive flow-cytometry cross-match by pretransplant plasmapheresis. Transplant Proc 37: 643–644, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Thielke JJ,
    2. West-Thielke PM,
    3. Herren HL,
    4. Bareato U,
    5. Ommert T,
    6. Vidanovic V,
    7. Campbell-Lee SA,
    8. Tzvetanov IG,
    9. Sankary HN,
    10. Kaplan B,
    11. Benedetti E,
    12. Oberholzer J
    : Living donor kidney transplantation across positive crossmatch: the University of Illinois at Chicago experience. Transplantation 87: 268–273, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Bentall A,
    2. Cornell LD,
    3. Gloor JM,
    4. Park WD,
    5. Gandhi MJ,
    6. Winters JL,
    7. Chedid MF,
    8. Dean PG,
    9. Stegall MD
    : Five-year outcomes in living donor kidney transplants with a positive crossmatch. Am J Transplant 13: 76–85, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Cornell LD,
    2. Schinstock CA,
    3. Gandhi MJ,
    4. Kremers WK,
    5. Stegall MD
    : Positive crossmatch kidney transplant recipients treated with eculizumab: outcomes beyond 1 year. Am J Transplant 15: 1293–1302, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Augustine JJ,
    2. Woodside KJ,
    3. Padiyar A,
    4. Sanchez EQ,
    5. Hricik DE,
    6. Schulak JA
    : Independent of nephrectomy, weaning immunosuppression leads to late sensitization after kidney transplant failure. Transplantation 94: 738–743, 2012
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Del Bello A,
    2. Congy-Jolivet N,
    3. Sallusto F,
    4. Guilbeau-Frugier C,
    5. Cardeau-Desangles I,
    6. Fort M,
    7. Esposito L,
    8. Guitard J,
    9. Cointault O,
    10. Lavayssière L,
    11. Nogier MB,
    12. Blancher A,
    13. Rostaing L,
    14. Kamar N
    : Donor-specific antibodies after ceasing immunosuppressive therapy, with or without an allograft nephrectomy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1310–1319, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Woodside KJ,
    2. Schirm ZW,
    3. Noon KA,
    4. Huml AM,
    5. Padiyar A,
    6. Sanchez EQ,
    7. Sarabu N,
    8. Hricik DE,
    9. Schulak JA,
    10. Augustine JJ
    : Fever, infection, and rejection after kidney transplant failure. Transplantation 97: 648–653, 2014
    OpenUrlPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 11 (4)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 11, Issue 4
April 07, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Approach to the Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Candidate
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Approach to the Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Candidate
Douglas S. Keith, Gayle M. Vranic
CJASN Apr 2016, 11 (4) 684-693; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05930615

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Approach to the Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Candidate
Douglas S. Keith, Gayle M. Vranic
CJASN Apr 2016, 11 (4) 684-693; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05930615
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Case Presentation
    • HLA Testing in Kidney Transplantation
    • Evolving Approach to the Highly Sensitized Candidate
    • Advances in Desensitization of the Highly Sensitized Candidate
    • Case Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Questions
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Sepsis-Associated AKI
  • A Patient with a Novel Gene Mutation Leading to Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease
  • A Woman with ESRD with Increasing Need for Erythropoietin to Maintain Hemoglobin
Show more Attending Rounds

Cited By...

  • Immunoglobulin G-Degrading Enzyme of Streptococcus pyogenes (IdeS), Desensitization, and the Kidney Allocation System: Complementary Approaches to Increase Transplantation in Highly HLA Sensitized Patients
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • kidney transplantation
  • immunology
  • Allografts
  • HLA Antigens
  • Humans
  • kidney
  • kidney failure
  • chronic’ living donors
  • quality of life
  • renal dialysis

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire