Željko Kikić1, Alexander Kainz2, Nicolas Kozakowski3, Rainer Oberbauer2, Heinz Regele3, Gregor Bond1, Georg A Böhmig4. 1. Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine III, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 2. Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine III, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Medicine III, Hospital of Elisabethinen Linz, Linz, Austria; and. 3. Clinical Institute of Pathology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine III, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria; georg.boehmig@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent studies highlighting a role of C4d- antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) have debated whether C4d staining has independent value as a rejection marker. Considering the presumed role of complement as an important effector of graft injury, this study hypothesized that capillary C4d, a footprint of antibody-triggered complement activation, indicates a particularly severe manifestation of ABMR. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This large retrospective clinicopathologic study sought to assess the clinical predictive value of C4d staining in relation to ABMR morphology. Overall, 885 renal allograft recipients who underwent transplantation between 1999 and 2006 (median duration of follow-up, 63.3 [interquartile range, 40.6-93.5] months; 206 graft losses) were included if they had had one or more indication biopsies. A total of 1976 biopsy specimens were reevaluated for capillary C4d staining (C4d data were available for 825 patients) and distinct morphologic lesions suggestive of ABMR, including glomerulitis, peritubular capillaritis, capillary microthrombi, transplant glomerulopathy, and severe intimal arteritis. RESULTS: C4d+ patients, with or without ABMR features, had worse death-censored 8-year graft survival (53% or 67%) than C4d- patients (66% or 81%; P<0.001). In Cox regression analysis, C4d was associated with a risk of graft loss independently of baseline confounders and ABMR morphology (hazard ratio, 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 2.57]; P<0.001). The risk was higher than that observed for C4d- patients, a finding that reached statistical significance in patients showing fewer than two different ABMR lesions. Moreover, in a mixed model, C4d was independently associated with a steeper decline of eGFR (slope per year, -8.23±3.97 ml/min per 1.73 m(2); P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that detection of intragraft complement activation has strong independent value as an additional indicator of ABMR associated with adverse kidney transplant outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent studies highlighting a role of C4d- antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) have debated whether C4d staining has independent value as a rejection marker. Considering the presumed role of complement as an important effector of graft injury, this study hypothesized that capillary C4d, a footprint of antibody-triggered complement activation, indicates a particularly severe manifestation of ABMR. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This large retrospective clinicopathologic study sought to assess the clinical predictive value of C4d staining in relation to ABMR morphology. Overall, 885 renal allograft recipients who underwent transplantation between 1999 and 2006 (median duration of follow-up, 63.3 [interquartile range, 40.6-93.5] months; 206 graft losses) were included if they had had one or more indication biopsies. A total of 1976 biopsy specimens were reevaluated for capillary C4d staining (C4d data were available for 825 patients) and distinct morphologic lesions suggestive of ABMR, including glomerulitis, peritubular capillaritis, capillary microthrombi, transplant glomerulopathy, and severe intimal arteritis. RESULTS: C4d+ patients, with or without ABMR features, had worse death-censored 8-year graft survival (53% or 67%) than C4d- patients (66% or 81%; P<0.001). In Cox regression analysis, C4d was associated with a risk of graft loss independently of baseline confounders and ABMR morphology (hazard ratio, 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 2.57]; P<0.001). The risk was higher than that observed for C4d- patients, a finding that reached statistical significance in patients showing fewer than two different ABMR lesions. Moreover, in a mixed model, C4d was independently associated with a steeper decline of eGFR (slope per year, -8.23±3.97 ml/min per 1.73 m(2); P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that detection of intragraft complement activation has strong independent value as an additional indicator of ABMR associated with adverse kidney transplant outcomes.
Authors: B Sis; G S Jhangri; J Riopel; J Chang; D G de Freitas; L Hidalgo; M Mengel; A Matas; P F Halloran Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Christoph Schwarz; Heinz Regele; Nicole Huttary; Markus Wahrmann; Markus Exner; Katalyn Nagy-Bojarsky; Josef Kletzmayr; Walter H Hörl; Georg A Böhmig Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: B Sis; M Mengel; M Haas; R B Colvin; P F Halloran; L C Racusen; K Solez; W M Baldwin; E R Bracamonte; V Broecker; F Cosio; A J Demetris; C Drachenberg; G Einecke; J Gloor; D Glotz; E Kraus; C Legendre; H Liapis; R B Mannon; B J Nankivell; V Nickeleit; J C Papadimitriou; P Randhawa; H Regele; K Renaudin; E R Rodriguez; D Seron; S Seshan; M Suthanthiran; B A Wasowska; A Zachary; A Zeevi Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Lorraine C Racusen; Robert B Colvin; Kim Solez; Michael J Mihatsch; Philip F Halloran; Patricia M Campbell; Michael J Cecka; Jean-Pierre Cosyns; Anthony J Demetris; Michael C Fishbein; Agnes Fogo; Peter Furness; Ian W Gibson; Denis Glotz; Pekka Hayry; Lawrence Hunsickern; Michael Kashgarian; Ronald Kerman; Alex J Magil; Robert Montgomery; Kunio Morozumi; Volker Nickeleit; Parmjeet Randhawa; Heinz Regele; Daniel Seron; Surya Seshan; Stale Sund; Kiril Trpkov Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M Haas; B Sis; L C Racusen; K Solez; D Glotz; R B Colvin; M C R Castro; D S R David; E David-Neto; S M Bagnasco; L C Cendales; L D Cornell; A J Demetris; C B Drachenberg; C F Farver; A B Farris; I W Gibson; E Kraus; H Liapis; A Loupy; V Nickeleit; P Randhawa; E R Rodriguez; D Rush; R N Smith; C D Tan; W D Wallace; M Mengel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: P R Aguilar; D Carpenter; J Ritter; R D Yusen; C A Witt; D E Byers; T Mohanakumar; D Kreisel; E P Trulock; R R Hachem Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Erik Stites; Brandon Renner; Jennifer Laskowski; Moglie Le Quintrec; Zhiying You; Brian Freed; James Cooper; Diana Jalal; Joshua M Thurman Journal: Mol Immunol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 4.407
Authors: Caroline Wehmeier; Patrizia Amico; Patricia Hirt-Minkowski; Argyrios Georgalis; Gideon Höenger; Thomas Menter; Michael Mihatsch; Felix Burkhalter; Juerg Steiger; Michael Dickenmann; Helmut Hopfer; Stefan Schaub Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2017-02-09
Authors: Jakob Mühlbacher; Bernd Jilma; Markus Wahrmann; Johann Bartko; Farsad Eskandary; Christian Schörgenhofer; Michael Schwameis; Graham C Parry; James C Gilbert; Sandip Panicker; Georg A Böhmig Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Martin Schiemann; Elisabeth Puchhammer-Stöckl; Farsad Eskandary; Philip Kohlbeck; Susanne Rasoul-Rockenschaub; Andreas Heilos; Nicolas Kozakowski; Irene Görzer; Željko Kikić; Harald Herkner; Georg A Böhmig; Gregor Bond Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Katherine M Dominy; Michelle Willicombe; Tariq Al Johani; Hannah Beckwith; Dawn Goodall; Paul Brookes; H Terence Cook; Tom Cairns; Adam McLean; Candice Roufosse Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2018-09-18