BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of desensitization protocols using intravenous Ig with or without plasmapheresis in patients with donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies on prevention of antibody-mediated rejection and downregulation of donor-specific antibodies. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Thirty-five complement-dependent cytotoxicity T cell cross-match-negative but complement-dependent cytotoxicity B cell and/or flow cytometry cross-match-positive kidney transplant recipients were treated with high-dosage intravenous Ig plus Thymoglobulin induction treatment. Donor-specific antibody strength was stratified as strong, medium, or weak by Luminex flow beads. Group 1 patients had weak/moderate and group 2 strong donor-specific antibodies RESULTS: Whereas no group 1 patients had acute rejection, 66% of group 2 had acute rejection (44% antibody-mediated rejection, 22% cellular rejection). The protocol was then changed to the addition of peritransplantation plasmapheresis to patients with strong donor-specific antibodies (group 3). This change resulted in a dramatic decrease in the acute rejection rate to 7%. During a median 18 mo of follow-up, patient survival was 100, 100, and 93% and graft survival was 100, 78, and 86% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During follow-up, 17 (52%) patients lost donor-specific antibodies completely, and 10 (30%) lost some of donor-specific antibodies and/or decreased the strength of existing donor-specific antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicated that in patients with strong donor-specific antibodies, the addition of plasmapheresis to high-dosage intravenous Ig decreases the incidence of acute rejection. The majority of the patients, whether they received intravenous Ig alone or with plasmapheresis, lost their donor-specific antibodies during follow-up.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of desensitization protocols using intravenous Ig with or without plasmapheresis in patients with donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies on prevention of antibody-mediated rejection and downregulation of donor-specific antibodies. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Thirty-five complement-dependent cytotoxicity T cell cross-match-negative but complement-dependent cytotoxicity B cell and/or flow cytometry cross-match-positive kidney transplant recipients were treated with high-dosage intravenous Ig plus Thymoglobulin induction treatment. Donor-specific antibody strength was stratified as strong, medium, or weak by Luminex flow beads. Group 1 patients had weak/moderate and group 2 strong donor-specific antibodies RESULTS: Whereas no group 1 patients had acute rejection, 66% of group 2 had acute rejection (44% antibody-mediated rejection, 22% cellular rejection). The protocol was then changed to the addition of peritransplantation plasmapheresis to patients with strong donor-specific antibodies (group 3). This change resulted in a dramatic decrease in the acute rejection rate to 7%. During a median 18 mo of follow-up, patient survival was 100, 100, and 93% and graft survival was 100, 78, and 86% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During follow-up, 17 (52%) patients lost donor-specific antibodies completely, and 10 (30%) lost some of donor-specific antibodies and/or decreased the strength of existing donor-specific antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicated that in patients with strong donor-specific antibodies, the addition of plasmapheresis to high-dosage intravenous Ig decreases the incidence of acute rejection. The majority of the patients, whether they received intravenous Ig alone or with plasmapheresis, lost their donor-specific antibodies during follow-up.
Authors: Enver Akalin; Scott Ames; Vinita Sehgal; Barbara Murphy; Jonathan S Bromberg; Marilena Fotino; Rex Friedlander Journal: Transplantation Date: 2005-03-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: J M Gloor; F G Cosio; D J Rea; H M Wadei; J L Winters; S B Moore; S R DeGoey; D J Lager; J P Grande; M D Stegall Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-06-19 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: L C Racusen; K Solez; R B Colvin; S M Bonsib; M C Castro; T Cavallo; B P Croker; A J Demetris; C B Drachenberg; A B Fogo; P Furness; L W Gaber; I W Gibson; D Glotz; J C Goldberg; J Grande; P F Halloran; H E Hansen; B Hartley; P J Hayry; C M Hill; E O Hoffman; L G Hunsicker; A S Lindblad; Y Yamaguchi Journal: Kidney Int Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Andrea A Zachary; Robert A Montgomery; Lloyd E Ratner; Millie Samaniego-Picota; Mark Haas; Dessislava Kopchaliiska; Mary S Leffell Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: James M Gloor; Steven DeGoey; Nancy Ploeger; Howard Gebel; Robert Bray; S Breanndan Moore; Patrick G Dean; Mark D Stegall Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-07-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Amish Shah; Tibor Nadasdy; Lois Arend; James Brennan; Nufatt Leong; Myra Coppage; Mark Orloff; Richard Demme; Martin S Zand Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Vinay Nair; Deirdre Sawinski; Enver Akalin; Rex Friedlander; Zeynep Ebcioglu; Vinita Sehgal; Rajani Dinavahi; Rafael Khaim; Scott Ames; Susan Lerner; Barbara Murphy; Jonathan S Bromberg; Peter S Heeger; Bernd Schröppel Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Joseph Kahwaji; Eva Barker; Sam Pepkowitz; Ellen Klapper; Rafael Villicana; Alice Peng; Robert Chang; Stanley C Jordan; Ashley A Vo Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 8.237