Paolo Ferrari1, Linda Cantwell, Joseph Ta, Claudia Woodroffe, Lloyd DʼOrsogna, Rhonda Holdsworth. 1. 1 Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2 Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3 Victorian Transplantation and Immunogenetics Service, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4 Department of Clinical Immunology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Mudroch, WA, Australia. 5 School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation of compatible pairs (CP) in kidney paired donation (KPD) could be attractive to CPs who have a high degree of HLA mismatch, if the CP recipient will gain a better HLA match. Because KPD programs were not designed to help CP, it is important to define allocation metrics that enable CP to receive a better-matched kidney, without disadvantage to incompatible pairs (ICP). METHODS: Simulations using 46 ICPs and 11 fully HLA-mismatched CPs were undertaken using the Australian KPD matching algorithm. Allocations were preformed adding 1 CP at a time or all 11 CPs at once, and with and without exclusion of unacceptable antigens selected to give a virtual calculated panel-reactive antibody ranging 70% to 80% to improve HLA matching in CP recipients. RESULTS: On average, most CP recipients could be matched and had a lower eplet mismatch (EpMM) with the matched donor (57 ± 15) than with their own donor (78 ± 19, P < 0.02). However, only recipients who had an EpMM to own donor greater than 65 achieved a significant reduction in the EpMM with the matched donor. The gain in EpMM was larger when CPs were listed with unacceptable antigens. Furthermore, inclusion of 1 CP at a time increased matching in ICP by up to 33%, and inclusion of all 11 CPs at once increased ICP matching by 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Compatible pair participation in KPD can increase match rates in ICP and can provide a better immunological profile in CP recipients who have a high EpMM to their own donor when using allocation based on virtual crossmatch.
BACKGROUND: Participation of compatible pairs (CP) in kidney paired donation (KPD) could be attractive to CPs who have a high degree of HLA mismatch, if the CP recipient will gain a better HLA match. Because KPD programs were not designed to help CP, it is important to define allocation metrics that enable CP to receive a better-matched kidney, without disadvantage to incompatible pairs (ICP). METHODS: Simulations using 46 ICPs and 11 fully HLA-mismatched CPs were undertaken using the Australian KPD matching algorithm. Allocations were preformed adding 1 CP at a time or all 11 CPs at once, and with and without exclusion of unacceptable antigens selected to give a virtual calculated panel-reactive antibody ranging 70% to 80% to improve HLA matching in CP recipients. RESULTS: On average, most CP recipients could be matched and had a lower eplet mismatch (EpMM) with the matched donor (57 ± 15) than with their own donor (78 ± 19, P < 0.02). However, only recipients who had an EpMM to own donor greater than 65 achieved a significant reduction in the EpMM with the matched donor. The gain in EpMM was larger when CPs were listed with unacceptable antigens. Furthermore, inclusion of 1 CP at a time increased matching in ICP by up to 33%, and inclusion of all 11 CPs at once increased ICP matching by 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Compatible pair participation in KPD can increase match rates in ICP and can provide a better immunological profile in CP recipients who have a high EpMM to their own donor when using allocation based on virtual crossmatch.
Authors: Courtenay M Holscher; Kyle Jackson; Alvin G Thomas; Christine E Haugen; Sandra R DiBrito; Karina Covarrubias; Sommer E Gentry; Matthew Ronin; Amy D Waterman; Allan B Massie; Jacqueline Garonzik Wang; Dorry L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Francis L Weng; Tracy Grogan; Anup M Patel; Shamkant Mulgaonkar; Marie M Morgievich Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Courtenay M Holscher; Kyle Jackson; Eric K H Chow; Alvin G Thomas; Christine E Haugen; Sandra R DiBrito; Carlin Purcell; Matthew Ronin; Amy D Waterman; Jacqueline Garonzik Wang; Allan B Massie; Sommer E Gentry; Dorry L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Vivek B Kute; Himanshu V Patel; Pankaj R Shah; Pranjal R Modi; Veena R Shah; Sayyed J Rizvi; Bipin C Pal; Manisha P Modi; Priya S Shah; Umesh T Varyani; Pavan S Wakhare; Saiprasad G Shinde; Viajay A Ghodela; Minaxi H Patel; Varsha B Trivedi; Hargovind L Trivedi Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2016-10-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Brian I Shaw; Vincenzo Villani; Samuel J Kesseli; Chloe Nobuhara; Mariya L Samoylova; Dimitrios Moris; Bradley H Collins; Lisa M McElroy; Melissa Poh; Stuart J Knechtle; Andrew S Barbas; Hilliard F Seigler Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Mathieu Bray; Wen Wang; Michael A Rees; Peter X-K Song; Alan B Leichtman; Valarie B Ashby; John D Kalbfleisch Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 6.698
Authors: Arpita Basu; Mikel Prieto; Catherine Kosberg; Martin L Mai; Hasan A Khamash; Caroline C Jadlowiec; Naim S Issa; Patrick G Dean; Elizabeth C Lorenz; Mark D Stegall; Carrie A Schinstock Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 5.385