BACKGROUND: Sensitized heart transplant candidates are evaluated for donor-specific anti-HLA IgG antibody (DSA) by Luminex single-antigen bead (SAB) testing (SAB-IgG) to determine donor suitability and help predict a positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-XM) by virtual crossmatching (VXM). However, SAB testing used for VXM does not correlate perfectly with CDC-XM results and individual transplant programs have center-specific permissible thresholds to predict crossmatch positivity. A novel Luminex SAB-based assay detecting C1q-binding HLA antibodies (SAB-C1q) contributes functional information to SAB testing, but the relationship between SAB strength and complement-binding ability is unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified 15 pediatric and adult heart allograft candidates with calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) >50% by SAB-IgG and compared conventional SAB-IgG results with SAB-C1q testing. RESULTS: Pre- and post-transplant DSA by SAB-C1q correlated with DSA by SAB-IgG and also with CDC-XM results and early post-transplant endomyocardial biopsy findings. Individual HLA antibodies by SAB-IgG in undiluted sera correlated poorly with SAB-C1q; however, when sera were diluted 1:16, SAB-IgG results were well correlated with SAB-C1q. In some sera, HLA antibodies with low mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) by SAB-IgG exhibited high SAB-C1q MFIs for the same HLA antigens. Diluting or heat-treating these sera increased SAB-IgG MFI, consistent with SAB-C1q results. In 13 recipients, SAB-C1q-positive DSA was associated with positive CDC-XM and with early clinical post-transplant antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR). CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment for positive CDC-XM and early cAMR in sensitized heart allograft recipients are correlated with SAB-C1q reactivity.
BACKGROUND: Sensitized heart transplant candidates are evaluated for donor-specific anti-HLA IgG antibody (DSA) by Luminex single-antigen bead (SAB) testing (SAB-IgG) to determine donor suitability and help predict a positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-XM) by virtual crossmatching (VXM). However, SAB testing used for VXM does not correlate perfectly with CDC-XM results and individual transplant programs have center-specific permissible thresholds to predict crossmatch positivity. A novel Luminex SAB-based assay detecting C1q-binding HLA antibodies (SAB-C1q) contributes functional information to SAB testing, but the relationship between SAB strength and complement-binding ability is unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified 15 pediatric and adult heart allograft candidates with calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) >50% by SAB-IgG and compared conventional SAB-IgG results with SAB-C1q testing. RESULTS: Pre- and post-transplant DSA by SAB-C1q correlated with DSA by SAB-IgG and also with CDC-XM results and early post-transplant endomyocardial biopsy findings. Individual HLA antibodies by SAB-IgG in undiluted sera correlated poorly with SAB-C1q; however, when sera were diluted 1:16, SAB-IgG results were well correlated with SAB-C1q. In some sera, HLA antibodies with low mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) by SAB-IgG exhibited high SAB-C1q MFIs for the same HLA antigens. Diluting or heat-treating these sera increased SAB-IgG MFI, consistent with SAB-C1q results. In 13 recipients, SAB-C1q-positive DSA was associated with positive CDC-XM and with early clinical post-transplant antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR). CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment for positive CDC-XM and early cAMR in sensitized heart allograft recipients are correlated with SAB-C1q reactivity.
Authors: Susan Stewart; Gayle L Winters; Michael C Fishbein; Henry D Tazelaar; Jon Kobashigawa; Jacki Abrams; Claus B Andersen; Annalisa Angelini; Gerald J Berry; Margaret M Burke; Anthony J Demetris; Elizabeth Hammond; Silviu Itescu; Charles C Marboe; Bruce McManus; Elaine F Reed; Nancy L Reinsmoen; E Rene Rodriguez; Alan G Rose; Marlene Rose; Nicole Suciu-Focia; Adriana Zeevi; Margaret E Billingham Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Gerald J Berry; Annalisa Angelini; Margaret M Burke; Patrick Bruneval; Michael C Fishbein; Elizabeth Hammond; Dylan Miller; Desley Neil; Monica P Revelo; E Rene Rodriguez; Susan Stewart; Carmela D Tan; Gayle L Winters; Jon Kobashigawa; Mandeep R Mehra Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Martina Schnaidt; Christof Weinstock; Marija Jurisic; Barbara Schmid-Horch; Andrea Ender; Dorothee Wernet Journal: Transplantation Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: James H Lan; David Gjertson; Ying Zheng; Stephanie Clark; Elaine F Reed; Michael J Cecka Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Robin Schmitz; Zachary W Fitch; Paul M Schroder; Ashley Y Choi; Annette M Jackson; Stuart J Knechtle; Jean Kwun Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Laura J Wozniak; Michelle J Hickey; Robert S Venick; Jorge H Vargas; Douglas G Farmer; Ronald W Busuttil; Sue V McDiarmid; Elaine F Reed Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Dan Jane-Wit; Thomas D Manes; Tai Yi; Lingfeng Qin; Pamela Clark; Nancy C Kirkiles-Smith; Parwiz Abrahimi; Julie Devalliere; Gilbert Moeckel; Sanjay Kulkarni; George Tellides; Jordan S Pober Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Antonio Cuadrado; David San Segundo; Marcos López-Hoyos; Javier Crespo; Emilio Fábrega Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.742