Evaluation of pretransplant immunologic status in kidney-transplant recipients by panel reactive antibody and soluble CD30 determinations

Università di Pisa, Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.78). 06/2005; 79(9):1154-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000152660.56055.53
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To retrospectively compare the accuracy of pretransplant panel of reactivity antibodies (PRA) and serum level of soluble CD30 (sCD30) in predicting early (<6 months) acute rejection (AR) in living-donor and deceased-donor kidney-transplant (KT) patients.
Pretransplant sera of 24 KT recipients were retrospectively tested for sCD30 and compared with PRA. Inclusion criteria were de novo graft patients on calcineurin-inhibitor-based immunosuppression, minimum follow-up of 1 year, alive with a functioning graft, and stable renal function over the last 12 months. Objective measures were incidence of biopsy-proven AR (BPAR) within 6 months of KT and sCD30 and PRA diagnostic indexes. The relative risk (RR) of BPAR for each test was also obtained.
Fourteen (58.3%) patients presented at least one episode of BPAR within 6 months of KT. All rejection episodes were responsive to steroid treatment. PRA was positive in six (25%) patients, and four (66.7%) of them presented at least one episode of BPAR. sCD30 tested positive in nine (37.5%) patients, and all these later presented at least one episode of BPAR. sCD30 and PRA diagnostic indexes in predicting early (< 6months) BPAR were sensitivity 64.2% versus 28.5%; specificity 100% versus 80%; accuracy 79.1% versus 50%; positive predictive value 100% versus 66.6%; and negative predictive value 66.6% versus 44.4%. The RR of early AR was 1.4 in PRA-positive patients and extremely higher in the sCD30-positive group.
Pretransplant sCD30 is a more accurate predictor of AR when compared with PRA. These results support its use in the pretransplant work-up of kidney-graft recipients.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many of the causes of short and late morbidity following liver transplantation are associated with immunosuppression or immunosuppressive medications. Current care often involves close monitoring of liver biochemistry as well as therapeutic drug levels. However, the postoperative course following liver transplantation can often be associated with significant complications including infection and rejection, suggesting an inadequacy in current immune function monitoring. Many assays have been tested in the research setting to identify possible biomarkers that may be used to predict clinical events such as acute cellular rejection, and therefore allow modification of a patient's immunosuppressive regimen prior to a clinical event. However, these generally require significant laboratory processing and have had difficulty becoming established in common clinical use outside the research setting. One assay, Cylex ImmuKnow has been food and drug administration approved but has had variable results. In this review we discuss the assays that have been used to assess monitoring of immune function after liver transplantation and consider possible future directions.
    03/2014; 4(1):30-39. DOI:10.5500/wjt.v4.i1.30
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transplant biopsy has always been the gold standard for assessing the immune response to a kidney allograft (Chandraker A: Diagnostic techniques in the work-up of renal allograft dysfunction—an update. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 8:723–728, 1999). A biopsy is not without risk and is unable to predict rejection and is only diagnostic once rejection has already occurred. However, in the past two decades, we have seen an expansion in assays that can potentially put an end to the “drug level” era, which until now has been one of the few tools available to clinicians for monitoring the immune response. A better understanding of the mechanisms of rejection and tolerance, and technological advances has led to the development of new noninvasive methods to monitor the immune response. In this article, we discuss these new methods and their potential uses in renal transplant recipients.
    06/2013; 32(2):52–61. DOI:10.1016/j.krcp.2013.04.002
  • Source