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
Perspectives
Open Access

Being Thoughtful about Desensitization

Richard N. Formica and Sanjay Kulkarni
CJASN November 2017, 12 (11) 1878-1880; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.09000817
Richard N. Formica Jr.
*Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology and
†Department of Surgery, Section of Organ Transplantation and Immunology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sanjay Kulkarni
*Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology and
†Department of Surgery, Section of Organ Transplantation and Immunology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
  • 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
  • kidney transplantation
  • Donor Specific antibody
  • Highly sensitized
  • Desensitization

In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, Jordan et al. (1) report the results of a case series making use of an IgG endopeptidase derived from Streptococcus pyogenes to desensitize patients with donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) to an incompatible deceased donor kidney at the time of transplantation. In distinction from immune cell–depleting antibodies, such as thymoglobulin and rituximab (anti-CD20), which target and remove peripheral T and B cells, and plasmapheresis, which removes antibody in bulk, IgG endopeptidase destroys antibody by degrading it. This represents a potentially important advance for deceased donor kidney transplantation, because this agent can be given at the time that the patient is brought in to receive a donor organ and results in near-complete removal of all antibodies, including DSAs, from the circulation. The current practice to desensitize a patient waiting for a deceased donor kidney transplant is for a center to attempt to anticipate when organ offers will begin to occur. Then, an opened ended process of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) therapy with or without plasmapheresis is initiated in an effort to reduce DSAs while waiting for an appropriate organ. Additionally, this manuscript shows a proof of concept that IgG endopeptidases can be used safely in humans and cause rapid and complete short-term removal of antibody from the circulation. Although not assessed in this study, it is a logical extension to investigate the utility of this in the treatment of acute antibody-mediated rejection. As promising as this approach to treating sensitized patients awaiting kidney transplantation may be, it must be placed in the proper context, because in constructing their hypothesis, the authors overlook the current reality of deceased donor allocation.

This manuscript follows a similar pattern as others reporting the results of recent desensitization trials (2). That is, it fails to acknowledge that, since December 4, 2014, the kidney allocation system (KAS) prioritizes highly sensitized patients and hence, has dramatically reduced the mean waiting time for an organ offer (3). As Stewart and Klassen (4) report, the median waiting time for patients with calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRAs) 98%–100% has fallen from >19 years pre-KAS to 3.2 years post-KAS (Figure 1). This has a significant bearing on how desensitization trials are interpreted, because the central tenet of this approach is that the risk of more intense immunosuppression (5) and poorer graft survival with an incompatible organ (6) is offset by more rapid transplantation. If a sensitized patient can receive an organ to which he/she has no preformed DSAs in a short period of time, there is no clinical justification for desensitization. Since the implementation of the KAS, access to kidney transplantation has been greatly improved for all but the most extremely sensitized patients: those with cPRAs of 99.95%–100% (3). These individuals have antibodies to almost all HLAs and require a phenotypic, 0 HLA–mismatched organ to be transplanted. Additionally, in the post-KAS era, waitlist candidates in all cPRA categories are being transplanted in proportion to their representation on the waitlist; therefore, it is difficult to justify an intervention that will both allow some individuals to jump the line and result in worse overall outcomes.

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

Estimated waiting time until deceased donor kidney transplantation among very highly sensitized candidates (those with calculated panel reactive antibodies 98%–100%) before and after implementation of the new kidney allocation system (KAS). Reprinted from ref. 4, with permission.

When considering a therapy, such as desensitization, it is necessary to compare the risks of the therapy with those of the alternative. In the pre-KAS era, the alternative was waiting on dialysis, with the morbidity and mortality risks associated with it. After the waiting time for a highly sensitized patient approximates that of a patient with low or zero cPRAs, the risk benefit decision shifts to the risks of the procedure compared with the incremental increase in the amount of time spent on dialysis. The first notable risk in the study by Jordan et al. (1) is that 11 of 24 patients had rejection, ten of whom were antibody mediated or had cellular rejection with an antibody component. This preliminary rate of rejection exceeds the observed rejection rate of 10% seen with compatible transplants. This is nearly a fivefold increase in the rate of rejection. Hariharan et al. (7) showed that, in the modern era of calcineurin inhibitor–based immunosuppression, one episode of acute rejection cuts the expected graft survival in one half. Moreover, antibody-mediated rejection may be associated with even worse long-term graft survival (6). Finally, the rebound at 1 month after transplantation in DSAs is of potential concern. Even in those individuals who did not experience antibody-mediated rejection or cellular rejection, the persistence of DSA is associated with a significantly worse long-term outcome (8). Therefore, when considering the benefit of IgG endopeptidase to shorten time on the waitlist by achieving a short-term reduction in DSAs and allowing transplantation with a noncompatible donor, it is necessary to weigh it against the increased risk of having inferior long-term graft survival.

Outcome measures addressing renal function are reported as 6-month creatinine values, and they are reported as “generally good.” However, most patients appear to have creatinine estimates of 2 mg/dl at 6 months. Serum creatinine values at 1 year after transplantation correlate strongly with 5-year graft survival. As serum creatinine at 1 year increases above 1.5 mg/dl, there is a stepwise and significant reduction in 5-year graft survival (9). Therefore, although desensitization therapy in the short term allows for kidney transplantation sooner, it does not seem to confer the same benefit of longer-term graft survival achieved through compatible kidney transplants. Premature allograft failure results in greater sensitization, making subsequent transplants more challenging, with resultant worse 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival compared those rates of first-time transplant recipients (10).

Finally, the use of IgG endopeptidase at the time of transplantation results in challenges when administering immunosuppression. In the Swedish cohort, recipients received horse antithymocyte globulin (Atgam), because this is not digested by endopeptidase. In the United States, rabbit antithymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin) is used for induction therapy in highly sensitized patients, but there are no data presented on its resistance to digestion by endopeptidase. Patients in the United States trial received alemtuzumab (anti-CD52) for induction, but it was delayed until 4 days after transplantation. Finally, most protocols in highly sensitized patients also involve administration of human IVIG and rituximab at the time of transplantation; these would be rendered ineffective by IgG endopeptidase. In this trial, rituximab and IVIG are delayed 1–3 weeks. This delay in achieving full immunosuppression creates a window for the cellular immune response to be initiated and predisposes the patient to an increased risk of future rejection episodes. Therefore, because using this new therapy for desensitization causes such a large deviation from common practice (5), the results need to be interpreted cautiously. Ultimately, it must be studied in a randomized and controlled fashion before any conclusions can be made.

There are clearly evident clinical scenarios that require further investigation into the utilization of this novel agent. For patients who have the highest level of sensitization, those with cPRAs 99.9%–100%, this agent may represent the only viable opportunity for timely kidney transplantation. Another clinical scenario where this agent could provide great value is in the treatment of antibody-mediated rejection, where rapid reduction in antibody is necessary to prevent permanent allograft injury. IgG endopeptidase in this situation has the potential to immediately shut off an episode of antibody-mediated rejection and allows time for conventional immunosuppression to abrogate the immune response. However, with the success of the KAS and kidney paired donation in transplanting all but the most highly sensitized patients in a timely manner with a compatible kidney, the demonstrated risks and subpar outcomes of desensitization no longer have a place in routine clinical kidney transplantation.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest that would affect this manuscript. R.N.F. is the past chairman of the Organ Transplant and Procurement Organization/United Network of Organ Sharing Kidney Transplantation Committee.

Acknowledgment

The content of this article does not reflect the views or opinions of The American Society of Nephrology or the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the author(s).

Footnotes

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

  • Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jordan SC,
    2. Lorant T,
    3. Choi J,
    4. Kjellman C,
    5. Winstedt L,
    6. Bengtsson M,
    7. Zhang X,
    8. Eich T,
    9. Toyoda M,
    10. Eriksson BM,
    11. Ge S,
    12. Peng A,
    13. Järnum S,
    14. Wood KJ,
    15. Lundgren T,
    16. Wennberg L,
    17. Bäckman L,
    18. Larsson E,
    19. Villicana R,
    20. Kahwaji J,
    21. Louie S,
    22. Kang A,
    23. Haas M,
    24. Nast C,
    25. Vo A,
    26. Tufveson G
    : IgG endopeptidase in highly sensitized patients undergoing transplantation. N Engl J Med 377: 442–453, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Orandi BJ,
    2. Luo X,
    3. Massie AB,
    4. Garonzik-Wang JM,
    5. Lonze BE,
    6. Ahmed R,
    7. Van Arendonk KJ,
    8. Stegall MD,
    9. Jordan SC,
    10. Oberholzer J,
    11. Dunn TB,
    12. Ratner LE,
    13. Kapur S,
    14. Pelletier RP,
    15. Roberts JP,
    16. Melcher ML,
    17. Singh P,
    18. Sudan DL,
    19. Posner MP,
    20. El-Amm JM,
    21. Shapiro R,
    22. Cooper M,
    23. Lipkowitz GS,
    24. Rees MA,
    25. Marsh CL,
    26. Sankari BR,
    27. Gerber DA,
    28. Nelson PW,
    29. Wellen J,
    30. Bozorgzadeh A,
    31. Gaber AO,
    32. Montgomery RA,
    33. Segev DL
    : Survival benefit with kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors. N Engl J Med 374: 940–950, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Stewart DE,
    2. Kucheryavaya AY,
    3. Klassen DK,
    4. Turgeon NA,
    5. Formica RN,
    6. Aeder MI
    : Changes in deceased donor kidney transplantation one year after KAS implementation. Am J Transplant 16: 1834–1847, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Stewart DE,
    2. Klassen DK
    : Kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors and survival. N Engl J Med 375: 287–288, 2016
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    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
  6. ↵
    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
  7. ↵
    1. Hariharan S,
    2. Johnson CP,
    3. Bresnahan BA,
    4. Taranto SE,
    5. McIntosh MJ,
    6. Stablein D
    : Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 342: 605–612, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Wiebe C,
    2. Gibson IW,
    3. Blydt-Hansen TD,
    4. Pochinco D,
    5. Birk PE,
    6. Ho J,
    7. Karpinski M,
    8. Goldberg A,
    9. Storsley L,
    10. Rush DN,
    11. Nickerson PW
    : Rates and determinants of progression to graft failure in kidney allograft recipients with de novo donor-specific antibody. Am J Transplant 15: 2921–2930, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hariharan S,
    2. McBride MA,
    3. Cherikh WS,
    4. Tolleris CB,
    5. Bresnahan BA,
    6. Johnson CP
    : Post-transplant renal function in the first year predicts long-term kidney transplant survival. Kidney Int 62: 311–318, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Magee JC,
    2. Barr ML,
    3. Basadonna GP,
    4. Johnson MR,
    5. Mahadevan S,
    6. McBride MA,
    7. Schaubel DE,
    8. Leichtman AB
    : Repeat organ transplantation in the United States, 1996-2005. Am J Transplant 7: 1424–1433, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 12 (11)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 12, Issue 11
November 07, 2017
  • 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.
Being Thoughtful about Desensitization
(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
Being Thoughtful about Desensitization
Richard N. Formica, Sanjay Kulkarni
CJASN Nov 2017, 12 (11) 1878-1880; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09000817

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Being Thoughtful about Desensitization
Richard N. Formica, Sanjay Kulkarni
CJASN Nov 2017, 12 (11) 1878-1880; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09000817
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
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Personal Experiences of Patients in the Interaction of Culture and Kidney Disease
  • Reducing the Burden of CKD among Latinx
  • Social Determinants of Health in People with Kidney Disease
Show more Perspectives

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
  • donor specific antibody
  • Highly sensitized
  • Desensitization

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