-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent studies suggest that the appearance of anti-HLA antibodies in the early posttransplant period is associated with an increased incidence of acute and chronic rejection months later. However, very little is known about the prevalence of anti-HLA antibodies at the time that the rejection episodes are diagnosed. The purpose of this study was to analyze retrospectively 420 sera from 263 renal allograft recipients who were readmitted to the hospital for any reason between 1989 and 1998 in order to determine if a correlation existed between the presence of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies and graft rejection.
Sera were assayed for IgG HLA class I and II antibodies by ELISA. The ELISA results were analyzed using contingency tables with Fisher's exact test and compared with mismatched antigens in the donor.
Antibodies to donor HLA class I molecules in the posttransplant sera were extremely rare, occurring in only 6 of the 420 sera (1.4%) analyzed. Antibodies to donor class II antigens were slightly more common, occurring in 25 of the 420 sera (6%). In 21 of these 25 cases (84%), the presence of donor-specific HLA class II antibodies was associated with episodes of either acute (n=14) or chronic rejection (n=7). Five patients had antibodies to both class I and class II donor antigens, and all five of them lost their grafts to rejection.
Although the presence of donor-specific HLA antibodies presented a significant risk for acute or chronic rejection, 77% of all acute and chronic rejections occurred in patients without detectable HLA antibodies.
Transplantation 03/2001; 71(4):577-80. · 4.00 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Ganciclovir prophylactic regimens have been shown to be effective in renal transplant recipients at risk for primary (donor seropositive/recipient seronegative) and secondary (recipient seropositive) cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. However, in addition to serologic factors, the type and intensity of the administered immunosuppression is a strong risk factor for CMV disease. Since January 1995, we have utilized a potent immunosuppressive protocol selectively in recipients at high risk for immunologic graft loss, defined as retransplant recipients, recipients with delayed graft function, non-Caucasian recipients, and recipients suffering from acute rejection. Between January 1995 and December 1996, 110 consecutive renal transplants were performed in recipients who were either CMV seropositive or received an allograft from a CMV-seropositive donor. All recipients received ganciclovir prophylactic therapy for 3 months post-transplant. Group I (N = 43) consisted of recipients at high-immunologic risk for graft loss as defined above. These recipients were treated with an intense anti-rejection immunotherapeutic regimen consisting of Cellcept, Neoral, and prednisone, with the frequent addition of antilymphocyte antibody therapies and intravenous methylprednisolone. The remaining 67 recipients (group II) were treated with a less intense immunotherapeutic regimen consisting of azathioprine, Neoral, and prednisone. The incidence and severity of CMV disease and the patient and allograft survival were compared. The incidence of CMV syndrome was greater in group I (28%) compared with group II (7%), and was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The 1-yr patient and graft survival were similar, 95 and 91%, respectively, for group I compared with 97 and 97%, respectively, for group II. These data suggest that 3 months of ganciclovir prophylactic therapy is significantly less effective for the prevention of CMV disease in renal transplant recipients at high risk for acute rejection treated with an intense immunotherapeutic regimen. These data suggest that more effective prevention of CMV disease in these high-risk recipients will require the addition of other anti-viral agents, such as immunoglobulin preparation to the prophylactic regimen.
Clinical Transplantation 06/2000; 14(3):193-8. · 1.67 Impact Factor
-
Transplantation Proceedings 07/1998; 30(4):1205-6. · 1.00 Impact Factor
-
Transplantation Proceedings 07/1998; 30(4):1314-5. · 1.00 Impact Factor
