Poor Long-Term Renal Allograft Survival in Patients with Chronic Antibody-Mediated Rejection, Irrespective of Treatment—A Single Center Retrospective Study

Abstract

The Banff 2017 report permits the diagnosis of pure chronic antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR) in absence of microcirculation inflammation. We retrospectively investigated renal allograft function and long-term outcomes of 67 patients with cAMR, and compared patients who received antihumoral therapy (cAMR-AHT, n = 21) with patients without treatment (cAMRwo, n = 46). At baseline, the cAMR-AHT group had more concomitant T-cell-mediated rejection (9/46 (19.2%) vs. 10/21 (47.6%); p = 0.04), a higher g-lesion score (0.4 ± 0.5 versus 0.1 ± 0.3; p = 0.01) and a higher median eGFR decline in the six months prior to biopsy (6.6 vs. 3.0 mL/min; p = 0.04). The median eGFR decline six months after biopsy was comparable (2.6 vs. 4.9 mL/min, p = 0.61) between both groups, and three-year graft survival after biopsy was statistically lower in the cAMR-AHT group (35.0% vs. 61.0%, p = 0.03). Patients who received AHT had more infections (0.38 vs. 0.20 infections/patient; p = 0.04). Currently, antihumoral therapy is more often administered to patients with cAMR and rapidly deteriorating renal function or concomitant TCMR. However, long-term graft outcomes remain poor, despite treatment.

Full text



Citation: Wu, K.; Schmidt, D.; López
del Moral, C.; Osmanodja, B.;
Lachmann, N.; Zhang, Q.; Halleck, F.;
Choi, M.; Bachmann, F.; Ronicke, S.;
et al. Poor Long-Term Renal Allograft
Survival in Patients with Chronic
Antibody-Mediated Rejection,
Irrespective of Treatment—A Single
Center Retrospective Study. J. Clin.
Med. 2022,11, 199. https://doi.org/
10.3390/jcm11010199
Academic Editor:
Konstantinos Stylianou
Received: 6 December 2021
Accepted: 27 December 2021
Published: 30 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Journal of
Clinical Medicine
Article
Poor Long-Term Renal Allograft Survival in Patients with
Chronic Antibody-Mediated Rejection, Irrespective of
Treatment—A Single Center Retrospective Study
Kaiyin Wu 1,*, Danilo Schmidt 1, Covadonga López del Moral 1, Bilgin Osmanodja 1, Nils Lachmann 2,
Qiang Zhang 1, Fabian Halleck 1, Mira Choi 1, Friederike Bachmann 1, Simon Ronicke 1, Wiebke Duettmann 1,3,
Marcel G. Naik 1,3 , Eva Schrezenmeier 1,3 , Birgit Rudolph 4and Klemens Budde 1
1Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, CharitéUniversitätsmedizin Berlin,
10117 Berlin, Germany; danilo.schmidt@charite.de (D.S.); covadonga.lopez@charite.de (C.L.d.M.);
bilgin.osmanodja@charite.de (B.O.); qiang.zhang@charite.de (Q.Z.); fabian.halleck@charite.de (F.H.);
mira.choi@charite.de (M.C.); friederike.bachmann@charite.de (F.B.); simon.ronicke@charite.de (S.R.);
wiebke.duettmann@charite.de (W.D.); marcel.naik@charite.de (M.G.N.);
eva-vanessa.schrezenmeier@charite.de (E.S.); klemens.budde@charite.de (K.B.)
2Institute of Transfusion Medicine, CharitéUniversitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany;
nils.lachmann@charite.de
3Berlin Institute of Health, Anna-Louisa-Karsch-Str. 2, 10178 Berlin, Germany
4
Institute of Pathology, CharitéUniversitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; birgit.rudolph@charite.de
*Correspondence: kaiyin.wu@charite.de; Tel.: +49-30-450-514002; Fax: +49-30-450-514902
Abstract:
The Banff 2017 report permits the diagnosis of pure chronic antibody-mediated rejection
(cAMR) in absence of microcirculation inflammation. We retrospectively investigated renal allograft
function and long-term outcomes of 67 patients with cAMR, and compared patients who received
antihumoral therapy (cAMR-AHT, n= 21) with patients without treatment (cAMRwo, n= 46).
At baseline, the cAMR-AHT group had more concomitant T-cell-mediated rejection (9/46 (19.2%)
vs. 10/21 (47.6%); p= 0.04), a higher g-lesion score (0.4
±
0.5 versus 0.1
±
0.3; p= 0.01) and a
higher median eGFR decline in the six months prior to biopsy (6.6 vs. 3.0 mL/min; p= 0.04).
The median eGFR decline six months after biopsy was comparable (2.6 vs. 4.9 mL/min, p= 0.61)
between both groups, and three-year graft survival after biopsy was statistically lower in the cAMR-
AHT group (35.0% vs. 61.0%, p= 0.03). Patients who received AHT had more infections (0.38
vs.
0.20 infections
/patient; p= 0.04). Currently, antihumoral therapy is more often administered
to patients with cAMR and rapidly deteriorating renal function or concomitant TCMR. However,
long-term graft outcomes remain poor, despite treatment.
Keywords:
kidney transplantation; chronic antibody-mediated rejection; transplant glomerulopathy;
antihumoral therapy; graft survival
1. Introduction
In the last decade, it became evident that chronic antibody-mediated injury is an impor-
tant cause of late allograft failure, outside of death, with functioning graft [
1
]. The transplant
glomerulopathy (TG), also known as Banff cg-lesion, with characteristic duplication and/or
multilayering of the glomerular basement membrane, represents the morphological sub-
strate of chronic antibody-mediated injury in the kidney allograft
[2–4]
. With the concurrent
improvements in HLA-antibody detection methods, important advances have been made
in the diagnosis and pathophysiology of AMR, and a wide spectrum of subcategories have
been introduced into the Banff classification, which comprise the phenotypic heterogeneity
of AMR [
5
]. The chronic active AMR (cAAMR) was first defined in Banff 2005 report [
6
]; the
diagnosis of cAAMR required coexistence of the morphologic features (in most cases of TG),
the immunohistologic evidence (capillary C4d deposition) and the serologic evidence for
J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010199 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcm

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 2 of 14
circulating donor specific HLA-antibodies (DSA). Later, a C4d-negative cAAMR was recog-
nized in Banff 2013 report [
7
], and peritubular capillary C4d deposits could be replaced
by at least moderate microcirculation inflammation (MVI). Nevertheless, in the clinical
setting, it is common for the three diagnostic features of cAAMR to appear as an incomplete
combination. As a consequence, the Banff 2017 report [
8
] permits the diagnosis of pure
cAMR based on the presence of TG and circulating DSA in the absence of capillary C4d
deposits or MVI (MVI score
≤
1). However, the repeatedly revised criteria of AMR leaves
clinicians uncertain about the outcome after diagnosis and the consequences
for treatment
.
So far much effort has been made to investigate the therapeutic options for attenuating
the chronic antibody-mediated destruction [
9
]. The primary aims of nearly all therapeutic
approaches for AMR are removing circulating DSA and reducing DSA production. In
this sense, the strongholds for contemporary treatment of active AMR are represented
by high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and plasmapheresis (PPh); it has been
demonstrated that IVIG plus PPh, with or without rituximab, a frequently prescribed
standard of care for active AMR, could improve short-term outcomes, while their results
on long-term effects remain variable [
10
]. Moreover, there is currently no established con-
sensus for the treatment of pure chronic AMR without microcirculation inflammation. The
treatment studies for chronic active AMR are rarely comparable, partly because different
Banff classifications were used, and the available evidence is generally of low quality. Sev-
eral studies have reported that the presence of TG associates with a low response to therapy
and, consequently, constitutes one of the main reasons for the late graft failure [
11
,
12
]. Due
to the low evidence for the outcome of patients with pure cAMR according to Banff 2017,
we performed a single-center retrospective study to investigate long-term outcomes with a
focus on the efficacy and safety of currently available agents for treatment of pure cAMR.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Population and Data Collection
We reviewed all adult recipients who received the single kidney transplantation in
the transplant centre of CharitéCampus Mitte and CharitéVirchow Klinikum. Between
January 2008 and December 2018, 4380 for-cause graft biopsies were performed, and TG
was observed in 487 biopsies (11.1%) in 325 patients. All patients who developed pure
cAMR with TG in kidney grafts were enrolled in this retrospective study. The exclusion
schema involved an active malignant disease, recurrent or de novo glomerulonephritis or
de novo thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) in allograft and polyoma virus nephropathy
(Figure 1). All renal allograft recipients with cAMR according to Banff 2017 and who rou-
tinely visited the transplantation clinic for follow-up care were enrolled. The demographic,
transplantation characteristics, immunosuppression and treatment were registered at each
outpatient clinic visit in the database [
13
], and the measurements of eGFR, serum creatinine
and proteinuria were taken six months before and at studied biopsy as well as every three
months after diagnosis. The database was almost complete, with <6% missing values in
different data fields. In the case of missing values at a certain time point, the next available
value was used. If there were several measurements in one time interval, the measurements
at or nearest to the planned follow-up were used for analysis. In addition, measurements
taken during hospitalization were omitted from analysis to minimize bias due to intercur-
rent illness and treatment, for example, infection and the admission of intravenous fluids
etc. All clinical and laboratory data were selected in the transplant database system [
13
]
and assessed for completeness by a single investigator (S.D.).

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 3 of 14
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14
Figure 1. Flow chart of patients enrolled in the study. iTG: isolated transplant glomerulopathy;
cAMR: chronic antibody-mediated rejection; cAAMR: chronic active antibody-mediated rejection;
PTLD: post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder; IgAN: IgA Nephropathy; FSGS: focal seg-
mental glomerulosclerosis; HLA-ab: antibody against human leukocyte antigen; TG: transplant
glomerulopathy; DSA: donor specific anti-HLA antibody
2.2. Histopathology Evaluation
All for-cause biopsies were undertaken when the serum creatinine (Scr) rose above
25% from the baseline or there was a clinical relevant increase in daily urinary protein
excretion. The biopsy specimens were processed with standard techniques in the institute
of pathology. All histological slides of the studied biopsy were selected from the archive
and reevaluated by the nephropathologist (B.R.) according to the Banff classification 2017
[8]. TG was distinguished from recurrent or de novo immune complex glomerulopathy
by the immunofluorescence and electron microscopy [14]. The C4d deposition was de-
tected by indirect immunofluorescence on paraffin sections of formalin-fixed tissue (pol-
yclonal anti-C4d antibody, Dianovo, Germany); more than 10% peritubular capillaries
with linear deposition of C4d were considered as a positive reaction. In addition, the prox-
imal tubular epithelial cytoplasma vacuolization and obliterative arteriopathy were often
referred to chronic calcineurin-inhibitor (CNI) toxicity. All Banff lesions were graded on
a scale of 0–3 according to the proportion of cortical area affected, with higher scores in-
dicating more severe abnormalities.
Figure 1.
Flow chart of patients enrolled in the study. iTG: isolated transplant glomerulopathy; cAMR:
chronic antibody-mediated rejection; cAAMR: chronic active antibody-mediated rejection; PTLD: post
transplant lymphoproliferative disorder; IgAN: IgA Nephropathy; FSGS: focal segmental glomeru-
losclerosis; HLA-ab: antibody against human leukocyte antigen; TG: transplant glomerulopathy;
DSA: donor specific anti-HLA antibody.
2.2. Histopathology Evaluation
All for-cause biopsies were undertaken when the serum creatinine (Scr) rose above
25% from the baseline or there was a clinical relevant increase in daily urinary protein
excretion. The biopsy specimens were processed with standard techniques in the institute of
pathology. All histological slides of the studied biopsy were selected from the archive and
reevaluated by the nephropathologist (B.R.) according to the Banff classification 2017 [
8
].
TG was distinguished from recurrent or de novo immune complex glomerulopathy by
the immunofluorescence and electron microscopy [
14
]. The C4d deposition was detected
by indirect immunofluorescence on paraffin sections of formalin-fixed tissue (polyclonal
anti-C4d antibody, Dianovo, Germany); more than 10% peritubular capillaries with linear
deposition of C4d were considered as a positive reaction. In addition, the proximal tubular
epithelial cytoplasma vacuolization and obliterative arteriopathy were often referred to
chronic calcineurin-inhibitor (CNI) toxicity. All Banff lesions were graded on a scale of 0–3
according to the proportion of cortical area affected, with higher scores indicating more
severe abnormalities.

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 4 of 14
2.3. HLA-Antibodies Screening
All serum samples were collected post studied biopsy and qualitatively screened for
HLA antibodies (HLA
−
ab) by the Luminex assay [
15
] from 2007 on. In addition, HLA-ab
specificities were determined by LABScreen Single Antigen beads assay (One Lambda,
Canoga Park, CA, USA). As an indicator for the antibody level, the normalized fluorescent
intensity (MFI) of the immunodominant donor-specific antibody was used. HLA-ab were
considered positive when exceeding a plausible MFI value of >500. The values of MFI
of immunodominant DSA against class I (panel A) or class II (panel B) antigens were
examined at biopsy and during the first year after studied biopsy. All tests were performed
according to the manufacturer’s guidelines, and the DSA level were monitored in regular
intervals, as previously described [16].
2.4. Immunosuppression and Therapeutic Strategies
The maintenance immunosuppressive protocols are shown in Table 1. The doses of
cyclosporine A (CyA)/tacrolimus (Tac) were adjusted according to whole blood trough
levels. For treatment of AMR, PPh was performed for six sessions, and IVIG at 1.5 g/kg
were given [
17
]. In addition, 5 of 21 patients received a single dose of rituximab (
375 mg/m2
body surface area) one week after the last IVIG infusion, and 4 patients received bortezomib
at 1.3 mg/m
2
administered intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 after the first IVIG infusion.
When the biopsy showed mixed TCMR, the patients were given 500 mg methylprednisolon
for three days, and thereafter reduced to maintenance dose of 5 mg/d. After intervention,
the patients received trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as prophylaxis for pneumocystis
jirovecii for six months. When a progressive calcineurin (CNI) nephrotoxicity was observed
by biopsies, the doses of CyA/Tac were minimized or switched to a CNI-free treatment of
sirolimus/everolimus or belatacept [18].
Table 1. Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with cAMR.
(A) Demographics
cAMRwo
(n= 46)
cAMR-AHT
(n= 21) p-Value
Recipient age (years, median IQR) 43 (18–69) 41 (25–67) 0.99
Recipient gender (m/f) 21/25 9/12 0.41
Recipient BMI (kg/m2median, IQR) 24.8 (18.3–35.5) 22.8 (19.7–34.4) 0.40
First kidney transplant N (%) 31 (67.4%) 15 (71.4%) 0.83
PRA before transplantation >10% N (%) 4 (8.7%) 5 (23.8%) 0.24
Broad HLA-mismatches (N, median IQR) 3 (0–6) 3 (0–5) 0.75
CIT (hours median IQR) 5.8 (0.5–20.3) 7.5(0.5–18.5) 0.03
Presence of DGF N (%) 14 (32.6%) 11 (52.4%) 0.10
Donor age (years, median, IQR) 50 (17–83) 49 (16–71) 0.21
Donor gender (m/f) 19/25 10/11 0.53
Living donation N (%) 18 (40.0%) 7 (33.3%) 0.55
(B) Clinical characteristics
Indications of the studied biopsy for graft
dysfunction/proteinuria/or both (N) 21/5/18 15/0/6 0.09
Duration between transplantation and studied biopsy
(years, median IQR) 7.3 (1.2–18.7) 5.3 (0.3–14.2) 0.03
Follow-up after biopsy
(years, median IQR) 5.6 (0.5–15.0) 6.3 (0.7–11.5) 0.10
Detectable DSA in serum
(months post transplantation, median IQR) 79.1 (14.8–197.6) 63.9 (0.5–177.0) 0.90
HLA-antibody class type I/II/both 8/28/10 3/13/5 0.58

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 5 of 14
Table 1. Cont.
(A) Demographics
cAMRwo
(n= 46)
cAMR-AHT
(n= 21) p-Value
Maintenance immunosuppression regimens at studied biopsy N (%)
Tac + MMF/MPA + PDN 24 (52.2%) 16 (76.2%) 0.06
CyA + MMF/MPA + PDN 6 (13.0%) 1 (4.8%) 0.29
Rapamycin + MMF/MPA + PDN 2 (4.3%) 1 (4.8%) 0.91
Tac + MMF/MPA 1 (2.2%) 1 (4.8%) 0.22
CyA + MMF/MPA 6 (13.0%) 1 (4.8%) 0.38
CyA + Azathioprine + PDN 1 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0.45
Tac + PDN 3 (6.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0.40
CyA + PDN 1 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0.54
MMF/MPA + PDN 2 (4.3%) 1 (4.8%) 0.73
Antihumoral therapy N (%)
PPh + IVIG – 12 (57.1%) –
PPh + IVIG + rituximab – 5 (23.8%) –
PPh + IVIG + bortezomib – 4 (19.0%) –
Steroid bolus to treat concomitant TCMR 9 (19.6%) 10 (47.6%) 0.04
Change of CNI after the studied biopsies N (%)
Increasing dose of CyA or Tac 10 (21.7%) 5(23.8%) 0.27
Reducing dose of CyA or Tac 9 (19.6%) 3 (14.3%) 0.36
Withdrawal of CyA or Tac 3 (6.5%) 1 (4.8%) 0.87
Switch between CyA and Tacrolimus 7 (15.2%) 7 (33.3%) 0.40
Switch CNI to mTor inhibitor 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.10
Switch CNI to Belatacept 5 (10.9%) 1 (4.8%) 0.56
No change 12 (26.1%) 4 (19.0%) 0.32
Presence of advere events in the 6 months post studied biopsy
Urinary tract infection N (%) 3 (6.5%) 3 (14.3%) 0.45
Respiratory tract infection N (%) 1 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0.44
CMV infectious colitis N (%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (9.5%) 0.02
Polyoma virus nephropathy N (%) 2 (4.4%) 0(0.0%) 0.09
Pancytopenia N (%) 3 (6.5%) 3(14.3%) 0.33
Overall 9 (19.6%) 8 (38.1%) 0.04
The level of HbA1c and blood pressure at studied biopsy
HbA1c level at studied biopsy (% means ±SD) 5.6 ±0.7 5.2 ±0.4 0.02
SBP at studied biopsy (mmHg mean ±SD) 141.3 ±19.5 129.4 ±16.6 0.02
DBP at studied biopsy (mmHg mean ±SD) 83.4 ±10.5 80.1 ±14.1 0.29
Antihypertensive therapy at studied biopsy
ACEi N (%) 24 (51.7%) 11 (52.4%) 0.71
ARB N (%) 16 (34.0%) 11 (52.4%) 0.14
CCB N (%) 27 (57.4%) 13 (61.9%) 0.87
Beta-blocker N (%) 7 (14.9%) 2 (9.5%) 0.64
cAMRwo: chronic antibody mediated rejection without treatment; cAMR-AHT: chronic antibody mediated
rejection with antihumoral treatment; IQR: interquartile range; BMI: body mass index; CIT: cold ischemic
time; PRA: panel reactive antibody; HLA: human leukocyte antigen; DSA: donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies;
MMF: mycophenolate
mofetil; MPA: mycophenolic acid; Tac: Tacrolimus; CyA: Cyclosporin A; PDN: Prednisolon;
Pulse of Methylprednisolon: 500 mg/day for 3 days; Switch of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI): between Cyclosporin
and Tacrolimus or initiating Rapamycin after suspending CNI; PPh: plasmapheresis; IVIG (Intravenous im-
munoglobulin): 1.5 g/kg; rituximab (anti-CD20 globulin): 375 mg/m2; repeated every 3 weeks for three rounds;
bortezomib (therapeutic proteasome inhibitor): 1.3 mg/m
2
, administered by intravenous bolus on days 1, 4, 8
and 11 of a 21-day cycle; CMV: cytomegalovirus; HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP:
diastolic blood pressure; ACEi: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker;
CCB: calcium channel blocker.
In addition, the patients with hypertension received at least one antihypertensive
drug; the patients having daily urinary protein excretion of more than 1 g/L received the

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 6 of 14
maximum tolerable dose of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and/or an
angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
2.5. The Observation of Clinical Outcomes
Our study ended at 60 months after studied biopsy or initiation of chronic dialysis.
The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR milliliter per minute per 1.73 m
2
) was
measured by calculated creatinine clearance equation [
19
]. The eGFR value of a failed graft
was assigned at 5 mL/min/1.73 m
2
. Furthermore, the responses to AHT were evaluated
through comparing the variation in eGFR and the daily urinary protein excretion with the
period before and after studied biopsy between the cAMR-AHT and cAMRwo group. The
long-term clinical outcomes were observed by comparing the graft and patient survival
rates between two groups at 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post studied biopsy.
2.6. Statistical Analysis
Normally distributed data were expressed as mean
±
SD and non-normally distributed
data as median (IQR). Categorical variables were expressed as N and percentage of the
total. Student’s t-test was used to compare two groups of continuous variables, and chi-
square was used for categorical data. Patient- and death-censored graft survival rates
were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier curves and log rank test. For univariate analysis of the
histological factors influencing the five-year death-censored graft failure, we performed a
Kaplan–Meier analysis for each histological Banff lesion comparing mild (score 0–1) and
severe (score 2–3) lesion scores. The Log Rank test was used for statistical comparison
between cases with mild and severe grade of each Banff lesion, and the Banff lesions
with p-values < 0.05 were selected for further multivariable analysis. For multivariable
modeling, a binary-logistic regression analysis was employed to examine the effects of three
selected clinical factors (receiving antihumoral therapy, eGFR and proteinuria at biopsy)
on overall graft survival, patient survival and death-censored graft survival. Proteinuria
and eGFR were classified as dichotomous values above or below the median. Adjusted
estimates from multivariable models are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence
intervals (CI). All statistics were performed by using SPSS16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA);
p-value < 0.05 was considered as significant.
3. Results
3.1. Clinical Characteristics at Studied Biopsy
We identified 67 renal allograft recipients with pure cAMR in our database and com-
pared long-term outcomes of patients who received antihumoral therapy (cAMR-AHT,
n= 21
) with patients without treatment (cAMRwo, n= 46). Most baseline demographic
characteristics of patients were comparable between two cAMR groups (Table 1). The
indications of allograft biopsy were also similarly distributed in two groups. However,
the cAMR-AHT group had more concomitant T-cell-mediated rejection compared to cAM-
Rwo (9/46 (19.2%) vs. 10/21 (47.6%); p= 0.04). TG was first observed at a median time
of
7.3 years
after kidney transplantation of the cAMR-AHT group, in comparison with
5.3 years
for the cAMRwo group (p= 0.03). The serologic DSA was detectable at a median
time of 5.3 years post transplantation in the cAMR-AHT group and 6.6 years in the cAM-
Rwo group (p= 0.30). In addition, eight (17.4%) patients of the cAMRwo group and three
(14.3%) of the cAMR-AHT group had single class I HLA-antibodies, twenty-eight (60.8%)
patients of the cAMRwo group and thirteen (61.9%) of the cAMR-AHT group had class II
HLA-antibodies, and ten (21.7%) patients of the cAMRwo group and five (23.8%) of the
cAMR-AHT group had both class I and II HLA-antibodies.
After biopsy, the maintenance immunosuppressive regimen remained unmodified in
twelve (26.1%) patients of the cAMRwo group and four (19.0%) of the cAMR-AHT group;
ten (21.7%) patients of the cAMRwo group and five (23.8%) of the cAMR-AHT group
received an increased dose of CNI; nine (19.6%) patients of the cAMRwo group and three
(14.3%) of the cAMR-AHT group reduced the dose of CNI; five (10.9%) patients of the

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 7 of 14
cAMRwo group and one (4.8%) of the cAMR-AHT group switched from CNI to Belatacept
(each pair-wise comparison yields p> 0.05).
3.2. Effect of Antihumoral Therapy (AHT) on DSA
As shown in Table 2, no significant differences were found on the median immunoflu-
orescence intensity (MFI) of the DSA between cAMR-AHT and cAMRwo groups at 0 days,
180 days and one year post studied biopsy.
Table 2.
Comparison of DSA, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria
between groups.
cAMRwo
(n= 46)
cAMR-AHT
(n= 21) p-Value
The values of MFI at and post the studied biopsies (median IQR)
MFI_max at biopsy, median (IQR) 7500 (528–23,336) 8293 (48–16,275) 0.98
MFI_max at 6 months post biopsy, median (IQR) 6234 (2018–18,209) 4470 (369–12,811) 0.61
MFI_max at 1 year post biopsy, median (IQR) 6368 (593–21,934) 4920 (43–16,817) 0.50
The values of eGFR at and post the studied biopsies (mL/min median IQR)
eGFR value at 6 months before studied biopsy 35.3 (12.0–86.0) 40.1 (10.5–88.6) 0.04
eGFR value at studied biopsy 28.5 (5.4–67.9) 26.4 (10.0–52.0) 0.60
eGFR value at 6 months post studied biopsy 26.7 (5.0–89.0) 21.6 (5.0–52.0) 0.30
The decline in eGFR values at and post the studied biopsies (mL/min median IQR)
∆eGFR value at studied biopsy −6.6 (−6.0–30.0) −13.1 (−1.0–60.6) 0.04
∆eGFR value at 6 months post studied biopsy −2.6 (−31.0–25.0) −4.9 (−18.8–7.0) 0.61
The variation in the proteinuria at and post the studied biopsies (mg/day median IQR)
PU value at 6 months before studied biopsy 991(59–5155) 653 (45–2613) 0.09
PU value at studied biopsy 918 (48–11,579) 969 (143–5812) 0.78
PU value at 6 months post studied biopsy 665(89–6989) 1114 (208–3732) 0.57
The decline in proteinuria at and post the studied biopsies (mg/day median IQR)
∆PU value at studied biopsy −21 (−3744–7465) 304 (−950–5588) 0.11
∆PU value at 6 months post studied biopsy 89 (−8272–4318) 27 (−3145–1195) 0.47
MFI: mean fluorescent intensity; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; PU: daily urine protein excretion.
3.3. Effect of AHT on the Allograft Function
As illustrated in Table 2, in the cAMR-AHT group, the median eGFR of cAMR-
AHT declined from 40.1 mL/min/1.73 m
2
at six months prior to the studied biopsy to
26.4 mL/min/1.73 m2
at biopsies, and further declined to 21.6 mL/min/1.73 m
2
at six
months after biopsy. The median eGFR of the cAMRwo group declined from
35.3 mL/min/1.73 m
2
at six months before the studied biopsy to 28.5 mL/min/1.73 m
2
at biopsy, and further declined to 26.7 mL/min/1.73 m
2
at six months after biopsy. In the
six months prior to studied biopsy, the decline of median eGFR in cAMRwo group was
significantly lower than that of the cAMR-AHT group (6.6 (
−
6.0–30.0) vs. 13.1 (
−
1.0–60.6)
mL/min/1.73 m
2
;p= 0.04). The median eGFR decline six months after biopsy was similar
between groups (p> 0.05).
Interestingly, twenty (21.7%) patients in the cAMRwo group and seven (33.3%) patients
in cAMR-AHT group had more than 1000 mg/d proteinuria at indication biopsy (Table 2).
The median of daily proteinuria at six months pre-, at- and six months post-biopsy were
comparable between the two groups (each pair-wise comparison yields p> 0.05). In
addition, 40 (85.7%) patients of the cAMRwo group and 19 (90.5%) of the cAMR-AHT
group received antihypertensive therapy with at least one ACE inhibitor or ARBs (p= 0.80).
3.4. Effect of AHT on the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes
The five-year Kaplan–Meier estimate for DCGS after diagnosis of cAMR was 32.7%.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the two- and three-year DCGS rate of the cAMR-AHT group was
significantly lower than those of the cAMRwo group (46.7% vs. 76.2% at two-year, p= 0.01;
35.0% vs. 61.0% at three-year, p= 0.02). At one, four and five years post biopsy, the DCGS

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 8 of 14
rates of the cAMR-AHT group were lower than those of the cAMRwo group, though the
differences did not reach significance, with low numbers.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
AHT group received antihypertensive therapy with at least one ACE inhibitor or ARBs (p
= 0.80).
3.4. Effect of AHT on the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes
The five-year Kaplan–Meier estimate for DCGS after diagnosis of cAMR was 32.7%.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the two- and three-year DCGS rate of the cAMR-AHT group
was significantly lower than those of the cAMRwo group (46.7% vs. 76.2% at two-year, p
= 0.01; 35.0% vs. 61.0% at three-year, p = 0.02). At one, four and five years post biopsy, the
DCGS rates of the cAMR-AHT group were lower than those of the cAMRwo group,
though the differences did not reach significance, with low numbers.
Patient survival rates were similar between the two groups at each time up to five
years post studied biopsy. Finally, the five-year Kaplan–Meier estimate for overall graft
survival (including patient death) was 31.0% (cAMR-AHT group 35.9% vs. cAMRwo
group 21.1%, p = 0.06)
Figure 2. The comparison of death-censored graft survival rates and patient survival rates up to 5
years post biopsy between cAMR-AHT and cAMRwo groups.
3.5. Histological Evaluation of the Studied Biopsy
The mean scores of the Banff lesions at biopsy were shown in Table 3; the mean g-
lesion score of the cAMR-AHT group was significantly higher than that of the cAMRwo
group (0.4 ± 0.5 versus 0.1 ± 0.3; p = 0.01). As mentioned, concomitant TCMR was observed
more frequently in the cAMR-AHT group (p = 0.04). In addition, the cAMRwo group
showed statistically higher mean scores of ci- and ct-lesion in comparison to the cAMR-
AHT group (each pair-wise comparison yields p < 0.05).
Figure 2.
The comparison of death-censored graft survival rates and patient survival rates up to
5 years post biopsy between cAMR-AHT and cAMRwo groups.
Patient survival rates were similar between the two groups at each time up to five
years post studied biopsy. Finally, the five-year Kaplan–Meier estimate for overall graft
survival (including patient death) was 31.0% (cAMR-AHT group 35.9% vs. cAMRwo group
21.1%, p= 0.06).
3.5. Histological Evaluation of the Studied Biopsy
The mean scores of the Banff lesions at biopsy were shown in Table 3; the mean g-lesion
score of the cAMR-AHT group was significantly higher than that of the cAMRwo group
(0.4
±
0.5 versus 0.1
±
0.3; p= 0.01). As mentioned, concomitant TCMR was observed more
frequently in the cAMR-AHT group (p= 0.04). In addition, the cAMRwo group showed
statistically higher mean scores of ci- and ct-lesion in comparison to the cAMR-AHT group
(each pair-wise comparison yields p< 0.05).
Table 3. Comparison of pathological features between groups.
cAMRwo
(n= 46)
cAMR-AHT
(n= 21) p-Value
(A) Histological diagnosis in for-cause allograft biopsies before studied biopsies
Episode of TCMRi > = 1, N (%) 13 (28.3%) 8 (38.1%) 0.09
Episode of TCMRv > = 1, N (%) 4 (8.7%) 0(0.0%) 0.38
Episode of active AMR > = 1, N (%) 2 (4.3%) 5 (23.9%) 0.11
Episode of ATI > = 1, N (%) 11 (23.9%) 3 (14.3%) 0.49
(B) Histological diagnosis in for-cause allograft biopsies after studied biopsies
Episode of cAAMR > = 1, N (%) 9 (19.6%) 4 (19.0%) 0.81
Episode of cAMR > = 1, N (%) 12 (26.1%) 9 (42.9%) 0.03

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 9 of 14
Table 3. Cont.
cAMRwo
(n= 46)
cAMR-AHT
(n= 21) p-Value
(C) Histological scores of Banff lesions in the studied biopsy (scores mean ±SD)
g (0–3) 0.1 ±0.3 0.4 ±0.5 0.01
ci (0–3) 1.0 ±0.9 0.5 ±0.8 0.04
ct (0–3) 1.0 ±0.9 0.5 ±0.8 0.04
mm (0–3) 0.7 ±0.9 0.3 ±0.6 0.06
ptc (0–3) 0.1 ±0.3 0.1 ±0.2 0.08
ah (0–3) 2.5 ±0.9 2.4 ±0.8 0.12
cv (0–3) 1.7 ±1.1 1.4 ±1.0 0.17
v (0–3) 0.1 ±0.3 0.1 ±0.3 0.17
i (0–3) 0.7 ±1.0 0.9 ±1.0 0.27
cg (0–3) 2.1 ±0.8 2.4 ±0.7 0.33
t (0–3) 0.3 ±0.7 0.5 ±0.6 0.38
C4d (0–3) 0.0 ±0.0 0.0 ±0.0 0.99
Concomitant TCMR N (%) 9 (19.6%) 10 (47.6%) 0.04
TCMRi: acute T-cell-mediated interstitial rejection that includes Borderline changes, TCMR Ia and TCMR Ib;
TCMRv: acute T-cell-mediated vascular rejection that includes TCMR IIa, IIb and III; ATI: acute tubular injury;
Banff scored lesions: glomerulitis (g); peritubular capillaritis (ptc); transplant glomerulopathy (cg); intimal arteritis
(v); interstitial inflammation (i); tubulitis (t); mesangial matrix increase (mm); vascular intimal fibrosis (cv);
arteriolar hyaline thickening (ah); interstitial fibrosis (ci) and tubular atrophy (ct).
Twenty (42.6%) patients of the cAMRwo group and eleven (52.4%) of the cAMR-AHT
group experienced at least one for-cause biopsy during the follow-up after the studied
biopsy (p= 0.76), of which nine (19.1%) patients of the cAMRwo group and four (19.0%) of
the cAMR-AHT group developed cAAMR (p= 0.85).
3.6. Safety of AHT
During the six months after biopsy, the infection complications (ICs) that required
hospitalization occurred more frequently in the cAMR-AHT group than in the cAMRwo
group, with a ratio of ICs/patient of 0.38 vs. 0.19 (p= 0.04, Table 1). Two (9.5%) cAMR-AHT
patients experienced CMV infectious colitis, in comparison to none of the cAMRwo group
(p= 0.02).
3.7. Correlation of Histological and Clinical Features with Five-Year Outcome after Diagnosis
of cAMR
Each Banff lesion was divided into mild grade (score 0–1) and severe grade (score 2–3).
After the exclusion of three patients, who died with a functioning graft, we could not find
significant differences in five-year death-censored graft survival when comparing mild and
severe Banff lesion scores in univariate Kaplan–Meier analysis (Supplementary Table S1).
As a consequence, no histological Banff lesion was selected for further multivariable analy-
sis. Based on clinical experience, we performed a binary-logistic regression to assess the
association of three selected clinical variables (eGFR (above or below median), proteinuria
(above or below median) and receiving antihumoral therapy) with five-year post-biopsy
overall graft survival, patient survival and death-censored graft survival; no histological
or clinical factors were found to be significantly associated with the long-term outcome
(Table 4).

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 10 of 14
Table 4.
Binary logistic-regression analysis of clinical factors associated with 5-year outcome after
diagnosis of cAMR.
Overall Graft Loss Patient Death Death-Censored
Graft Loss
Clinical factors OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value
eGFR above median at biopsy 0.4 0.1 1.5 0.18 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.20 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.19
PU above median at biopsy 2.2 0.6 8.5 0.24 2.3 0.6 8.9 0.23 2.2 0.6 8.5 0.18
Receiving antihumoral therapy 2.5 0.6
10.0
0.21 1.9 0.5 7.8 0.38 2.6 0.6
10.7
0.18
eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; PU: Proteinuria; OR: odds ratio; CI: conference intervals for
odds ratio
.
4. Discussion
With the increasing recognition of the role of alloantibodies and the corresponding
morphological changes in patients with chronic deterioration of allograft function, the
diagnostic criteria for AMR have been considerably updated [
20
]. However, there is still
significant ambiguity in the Banff criteria in terms of the classification and behavior of
the different forms of AMR [
11
,
21
]. The current criteria of cAMR was last updated in
the Banff 2017 report; unlike cAAMR, the capillary C4d deposition and at least moderate
MVI are no longer conditions for the diagnosis of cAMR [
8
]. Nevertheless, there is still no
proven treatment to modify the natural course of cAMR, and the adverse events derived
from these AHT strategies are of great concern [22,23]. In the present study, we evaluated
whether a therapeutic regimen consisting of IVIG/PPh and other drugs frequently used
for treatment of active AMR could delay the rate of renal function decline in pure cAMR
patients. To select a homogeneous population, we excluded any biopsies showing TG with
C4d positive staining or at least moderate MVI to minimize any potential treatment effect
for patients with cAAMR. Our retrospective analysis did not show any obvious benefit of
AHT in patients with cAMR with regard to long-term outcomes. While we cannot exclude
a potential positive effect on the reduction in the observed rapid eGFR decline, we noted a
relevant overimmunosuppression after AHT.
Nearly all therapeutic approaches for treating AMR aim to remove circulating DSA
and to reduce DSA production [
24
]. A high dose of IVIG remains an essential component
of AHT, and it was suggested that better outcomes are achieved when IVIG is accompanied
with PPh for depleting circulating DSAs [
25
]. Although IVIG/PPh is regarded as the
”standard care of AMR“ [
26
], it exerts, in most cases, only on the effect of turning an acute
form of AMR into a subclinical disease, since the DSA-producing plasma cells are not
affected [
27
]. In an attempt to prevent further antibody production, some patients received
additional rituximab or bortezomib therapy. A prospective, double-blind, multicenter,
randomized study [
28
] reported that treatment of late AMR with rituximab, in combination
with steroids, IVIG and PPh, did not improve any outcome parameter compared to placebo.
Only side effects were increased, with a higher risk of infection [
29
]. An observational
cohort study suggested that the therapeutic efficacy of bortezomib in combination with
PPh and IVIG is higher in early AMR, while patients with late AMR were less responsive,
suggesting limited treatment efficacy in this indication [
30
]. In summary, current evidence
is in line with our data and supporting the conclusion of a recent consensus conference [
11
]
that there is no proven treatment for cAMR.
The development of TG is viewed as a structural ‘end-product’ of the antibody-
mediated pathophysiological process [
31
], while the quality and quantity (titer) of cir-
culating DSAs may impact the clinical manifestation of the AMR [
32
,
33
]. However, dis-
crepancies between histological and serological findings are common. Features of active
AMR, such as C4d deposition and a high grade of MVI lesions, may be fluctuating and
cannot be predicted by positive serology alone. Patients with exclusively weak or no
complement-activating DSAs tend to experience less disease activity and may have better
outcomes [
34
,
35
]. Moreover, it is well documented that different clinical courses after devel-
opment of DSA exist [
36
]: some patients with detected DSAs develop one or more episodes
of acute graft dysfunction associated with AMR [
37
]; on the contrary, some patients with

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 11 of 14
serologic DSAs experience only subclinical AMR [
38
]. In this respect, even histological
discrepancy exists, and it is discussed that cAMR and cAAMR represent a spectrum of
disease severity of the same disorder, instead of two distinct pathophysiological types.
Our study showed that nearly 19% of cases in both groups developed the cAAMR in
follow-up biopsies, providing further evidence for a fluctuating disease activity and/or
patchy distribution of disease activity in the kidney. Our clinical observation may also
support the potential utility of a protocol biopsy in patients with unsuccessfully treated TG
in further studies.
Transplant glomerulitis (Banff g-lesion) is one of the morphological features indicating
active AMR and defined as a Banff g-lesion. Although cAMR groups in our study had
maximal g1-lesion, the mean score of the g-lesion was statistically higher in the cAMR-
AHT group than in the cAMRwo group. Even mild glomerulitis together with rapid
deterioration of graft function led the physician to consider AHT more frequently, in the
hope of modifying progression. Although we cannot exclude some potential minor positive
effects, our study revealed that the infectious adverse events and hospitalization were more
frequent in the cAMR-AHT group. Similar to previous reports, the AHT regimen with
enhanced immunosuppression led to a higher number of overimmunosuppression—in
particular, opportunistic infections [
39
]—as well as conferred a substantial risk of drug-
toxicities, which was closely associated with the deterioration of the tubulointerstitial
fibrosis and inferior late graft survival [
40
,
41
]. Furthermore, the changes in maintenance
immunosuppressive therapy post studied biopsy may complicate the evaluation of the
safety of the AHT regimen. Therefore, the ideal therapeutic guidelines for cAMR remain to
be determined, and the choice of appropriate medication dosage, paired with careful patient
monitoring and adjustment of baseline immunosuppression, needs to be considered.
AMR is often initially detected with concomitant TCMR, and the treatment of concomi-
tant TCMR is recommended in all cases of AMR [
42
]. Our data showed that concomitant
TCMR were detected in significantly more cases of the cAMR-AHT group than that of the
cAMRwo group, in parallel with the evidently rapid decline in eGFR before studied biopsy
in the cAMR-AHT group than that of the cAMRwo group. Consequently, an additional
steroid bolus was given to treat the mixed TCMR. The fact that median eGFR decline was
similar between the cAMR-AHT and cAMRwo groups may suggest that the concomitant
TCMR responded to additional steroid bolus treatment, albeit did not improve the graft
outcome in cAMR patients.
While AHT was preferred in patients with cAMR and rapidly progressing allograft
insufficiency, conservative treatment was chosen in patients with advanced interstitial
fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) but minimal features of active AMR. Chronic histologic
damage has previously been identified as one of the most important attributing factors
to kidney allograft loss, irrespective of diagnosis [
43
]. We cannot discard the possibility
that the lack of response to AHT may be due to the selection of a population with too
advanced and irreversible pathological damage. Although the long-term outcome was
poor, conservative treatment approaches were even better than AHT. Long term exposure
to CNI is one of the major risk factors leading to arterial intimal fibroproliferation and
neointimal thickening, eventually resulting in graft ischemia and striped tubulointerstitial
fibrosis [
44
]. The patients in both the cAMR-AHT and cAMRwo groups displayed mod-
erate to severe transplant vasculopathy, which are regarded as the hallmarks of chronic
allograft dysfunction and undoubtedly contribute to late graft loss [
45
]. In addition, the
morphologic feature of IFTA (Banff ci- and ct-lesions) is commonly seen in the late period
of transplantation and indicates the cumulative burden of injury and diseases [
46
]. Patri
et al. have previously shown that a chronic inflammation score combines interstitial fibrosis
and tubular atrophy associated with long-term graft failure in patients with TG [
47
]. In our
study, although the mean score of ci- and ct-lesion in both groups had not yet advanced to
the chronic scarring stage, the presence of IFTA in combination with severe vasculopathy
and glomerulosclerosis predicted rather poor graft survival.

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 12 of 14
At biopsy and six months post studied biopsy the eGFR and proteinuria levels were
similar between the two cAMR groups. Furthermore, the MFI of the immunodominant DSA
presented similarly at studied biopsy and during follow-up. Differences in scores associated
with chronic scarring might be considered secondary to the diabetes and hypertension, and
might be partially explained by the evidently higher level of Hb1Ac and systolic blood
pressure in the cAMRwo group. Despite lower mean scores of mm-, ci- and ct-lesions,
patients receiving AHT had an inferior graft outcome. The logistic regression analysis also
showed that receiving AHT had no significant impact on long-term graft outcome.
In summary, our observational study suggests that the utility of the AHT regimen to
treat cAMR had no major effect on the fluctuating course of DSA or improving the graft
outcomes. Even worse, the AHT regimen created infectious complications for the patients.
We recognize that a prospective, randomized trial will be needed to validate these initial
findings, and our findings clearly support the use of a rigorous control group. Meanwhile,
our evidence suggests that, when approaching the use of existing AHT agents for inactive
AMR, less may be more.
Supplementary Materials:
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11010199/s1, Table S1. univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis of
severity of Banff lesion score on 5-year death-censored graft survival after diagnosis of cAMR.
Author Contributions:
K.W. and B.R.: participated in evaluation of pathologic slides, research design
and writing; D.S.: participated in data administration; C.L.d.M. and N.L. participated in detection of
DSA; Q.Z., B.O., F.H., M.G.N., M.C., F.B., S.R., W.D., F.B. and E.S.: participated in the designation and
performance of the research; K.B.: participated in the research design and paper writing. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines
of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Charité-
Universitätsmedizin Berlin (protocol code EA4/202/19, date of approval 5/25/2020).
Informed Consent Statement:
Patient consent was waived due to retrospective nature of this study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the cor-
responding author. The data are not publicly available due to data protection and ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest:
MGN, ES and WD are participants in the BIH CharitéDigital Clinician Scientist
Program funded by the Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, the Berlin Institute of Health and the
German Research Foundation (DFG).
References
1.
Mayrdorfer, M.; Liefeldt, L.; Wu, K.; Rudolph, B.; Zhang, Q.; Friedersdorff, F.; Lachmann, N.; Schmidt, D.; Osmanodja, B.;
Naik, M.G.; et al. Exploring the complexity of death-censored kidney allograft failure. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
2021
,32, 1513–1526.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Einecke, G.; Sis, B.; Reeve, J.; Mengel, M.; Campbell, P.M.; Hidalgo, L.G.; Kaplan, B.; Halloran, P.F. Antibody-mediated
microcirculation injury is the major cause of late kidney transplant failure. Am. J. Transplant.
2009
,9, 2520–2531. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3.
Banfi, G.; Villa, M.; Cresseri, D.; Cresseri, D.; Ponticelli, C. The clinical impact of chronic tranplant glomerulopathy in cyclosporine
era. Transplantation 2005,80, 1392–1397. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Remport, A.; Ivanyi, B.; Mathe, Z.; Tinckam, K.; Mucsi, I.; Molnar, M.Z. Better understanding of transplant glomerulopathy
secondary to chronic antibody-mediated rejection. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2015,30, 1825–1833. [CrossRef]
5.
Montgomery, R.A.; Cozzi, E.; West, L.J.; Warren, D.S. Humoral immunity and antibody-mediated rejection in solid organ
transplantation. Semin. Immunol. 2011,23, 224–234. [CrossRef]
6.
Solez, K.; Colvin, R.B.; Racusen, L.C.; Sis, B.; Halloran, P.F.; Birk, P.E.; Campbell, P.M.; Cascalho, M.; Collins, A.B.; Demetris, A.J.;
et al. Banff ‘05 Meeting Report: Differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy
(’CAN’). Am. J. Transplant. 2007,7, 518–526. [CrossRef]
7.
Haas, M.; Sis, B.; Racusen, L.C.; Solez, K.; Glotz, D.; Colvin, R.B.; Castro, M.C.R.; David, D.S.R.; David-Neto, E.; Bagnasco, S.M.;
et al. Banff 2013 meeting report: Inclusion of c4d-negative antibody-mediated rejection and antibody-associated arterial lesions.
Am. J. Transplant. 2014,14, 272–283. [CrossRef]

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 13 of 14
8.
Haas, M.; Loupy, A.; Lefaucheur, C.; Roufosse, C.; Glotz, D.; Seron, D.; Nankivell, B.J.; Halloran, P.F.; Colvin, R.B.; Akalin, E.; et al.
The Banff 2017 kidney meeting report: Revised diagnostic criteria for chronic active T-cell-mediated rejection, antibody-mediated
rejection, and prospects for integrative endpoints for next-generation clinical trials. Am. J. Transplant. 2018,18, 293–307.
9.
Archdeacon, P.; Chan, M.; Neuland, C.; Velidedeoglu, E.; Meyer, J.; Tracy, L.; Cavaille-Coll, M.; Bala, S.; Hernandez, A.; Albrecht,
R. Summary of FDA antibody-mediated rejection workshop. Am. J. Transplant. 2011,11, 896–906. [CrossRef]
10.
Lefaucheur, C.; Nochy, D.; Andrade, J.; Verine, J.; Gautreau, C.; Charron, D.; Hill, G.S.; Glotz, D.; Suberbielle-Boissel, C.
Comparison of combination plasmapheresis/IVIG/anti-CD20 versus high-dose IVIG in the treatment of antibody-mediated
rejection. Am. J. Transplant. 2009,9, 1099–1107. [CrossRef]
11.
Schinstock, C.A.; Mannon, R.B.; Budde, K.; Chong, A.S.; Haas, M.; Knechtle, S.; Lefaucheur, C.; Montgomery, R.A.; Nickerson, P.;
Tullius, S.G.; et al. Recommended Treatment for Antibody-mediated Rejection After Kidney Transplantation: The 2019 expert
Consensus From the Transplantion Society Working Group. Transplantation 2020,104, 911–922. [CrossRef]
12.
Sis, B.; Campbell, P.M.; Mueller, T.; Hunter, C.; Cockfield, S.M.; Cruz, J.; Meng, C.; Wishart, D.; Solez, K.; Halloran, P.F. Transplant
glomerulopathy, late antibody-mediated rejection and the ABCD tetrad in kidney allograft biopsies for cause. Am. J. Transplant.
2007,7, 1743–1752. [CrossRef]
13.
Schmidt, D.; Osmanodja, B.; Pfefferkorn, M.; Graf, V.; Raschke, D.; Duettmann, W.; Naik, M.G.; Gethmann, C.J.; Mayrdorfer, M.;
Halleck, F.; et al. TBase—An Integrated Electronic Health Record and Research Database for Kidney Transplant Recipients. J. Vis.
Exp. 2021,170, e61971. [CrossRef]
14. Haas, M. Transplant glomerulopathy: It0s not always about chronic rejection. Kidney Int. 2011,80, 801–803. [CrossRef]
15.
Tait, D.B.; Süsal, C.; Gebel, M.H.; Nickerson, P.W.; Zachary, A.A.; Claas, F.H.J.; Reed, E.F.; Bray, R.A.; Campbell, P.; Chapman, J.R.;
et al. Consensus guidelines on the testing and clinical management issues associated with HLA and non-HLA antibodies in
transplantation. Transplantation 2013,95, 19–47. [CrossRef]
16.
Huber, L.; Lachmann, N.; Dürr, M.; Matz, M.; Liefeldt, L.; Neumayer, H.H.; Schönemann, C.; Budde, K. Identification and
therapeutic management of highly sensitized patients undergoing renal transplantation. Drugs
2012
,72, 1335–1354. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
17.
Waiser, J.; Klotsche, J.; Lachmann, N.; Wu, K.; Rudolph, B.; Halleck, F.; Liefeldt, L.; Bachmann, F.; Budde, K.; Duerr, M. Predictors
of graft survival at diagnosis of antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection: A retrospective single-center cohort study. Transplant.
Int. 2020,33, 149–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Ashman, N.; Chapagain, A.; Dobbie, H.; Raftery, M.J.; Sheaff, M.T.; Yaqoob, M.M. Belatacept as maintenance immunosuppression
for postrenal transplant de novo drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy. Am. J. Transplant.
2009
,9, 424–427. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19.
Rule, A.D.; Bailey, K.R.; Schwartz, G.L.; Khosla, S.; Lieske, J.C.; Melton, L.J., 3rd. For estimating creatinine clearance measuring
muscle mass gives better results thatn those based on demographics. Kidney Int. 2009,75, 1071–1078. [CrossRef]
20.
Montgomery, R.A.; Loupy, A.; Segev, D.L. Antibody-mediated rejectdion: New approaches in prevention and management. Am.
J. Transplant. 2018,18 (Suppl. S3), 3–7. [CrossRef]
21.
Callemeyn, J.; Ameye, H.; Lerut, E.; Senev, A.; Coemans, M.; von Loon, E.; Sprangers, B.; van Sandt, V.; Rabeyrin, M.; Dubois,
V.; et al. Revisiting the changes in the Banff classification for antibody-mediated rejection after kidney transplantation. Am. J.
Transplant. 2021,21, 2413–2423. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Wan, S.S.; Ying, T.D.; Wyburn, K.; Roberts, D.M.; Wyld, M.; Chadban, S.J. The treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in kidney
transplantation: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Transplantation 2018,102, 557–568. [CrossRef]
23.
Bartel, G.; Schwaiger, E.; Bohmig, G.A. Prevention and treatment of alloantibody-mediated kidney transplant rejection. Transpl.
Int. 2011,24, 1142–1155. [CrossRef]
24.
Takemoto, S.K.; Zeevi, A.; Feng, S.; Colvin, R.B.; Jordan, S.; Kobashigawa, J.; Kupiec-Weglinski, J.; Matas, A.; Montgomery, R.A.;
Nickerson, P.; et al. National conference to assess antibody-mediated rejection in solid organ transplantation. Am. J. Transplant.
2004,4, 1033–1041. [CrossRef]
25.
Stegall, M.D.; Gloor, J.; Winters, J.L.; Moore, S.B.; Degoey, S. A comparison of plasmapheresis versus high–dose IVIG de-
sensitization in renal allograft recipients with high levels of donor specific alloantibody. Am. J. Transplant.
2006
,6, 346–351.
[CrossRef]
26.
Walsh, R.C.; Brailey, P.; Girnita, A.; Alloway, R.R.; Shields, A.R.; Wall, G.E.; Sadaka, B.H.; Cardi, M.; Tevar, A.; Govil, A.; et al.
Early and late acute antibody-mediated rejection differ immunologically and in response to proteasome inhibition. Transplantation
2011,91, 1218–1226. [CrossRef]
27.
Gupta, G.; Abu Jawdeh, B.G.; Bhasin, B.; Bhasin, B.; Arend, L.; Trollinger, B.; Kraus, E.; Rabb, H.; Zachary, A.A.; Montgomery,
R.A.; et al. Late antibody-mediated rejection in renal allografts: Outcome after conventional and novel therapies. Transplantation
2014,97, 1240–1246. [CrossRef]
28.
Moreso, F.; Crespo, M.; Ruiz, J.C.; Torres, A.; Gutierrez-Dalmau, A.; Osuna, A.; Perello, M.; Pascual, J.; Torres, I.B.; Redondo-
Pachon, D.; et al. Treatment of chronic antibody mediated rejection with intravenous immunoglobulins and rituximab: A
multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Am. J. Transplant. 2018,18, 927–935. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Kamar, N.; Milioto, O.; Puissant-Lubrano, B.; Esposito, L.; Pierre, M.C.; Mohamed, A.O.; Lavayssiere, L.; Cointault, O.; Ribes, D.;
Cardeau, I.; et al. Incidence and predictive factors for infectious disease after rituximab therapy in kidney-transplant patients.
Am. J. Transplant. 2010,10, 89–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. Clin. Med. 2022,11, 199 14 of 14
30.
Touzot, M.; Couvrat-Desvergnes, G.; Castagnet, S.; Cesbron, A.; Renaudin, K.; Cantarovich, D.; Giral, M. Differential modulation
of donor-specific antibodies after B-cell depleting therapies to cure chronic antibody mediated rejection. Transplantation
2015
,99,
63–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Haas, M. The relationship between pathologic lesions of active and chronic antibody-mediated rejection in renal allografts. Am. J.
Transplant. 2018,18, 2849–2856. [PubMed]
32.
Heilman, R.L.; Nijim, A.; Desmarteau, Y.M.; Khamash, H.; Pando, M.J.; Chakera, H.A.; Huskey, J.; Valdez, R.; Reddy, K.S. De Novo
Donor-Specific Human Leukocyte Antigen Antibodies Early After Kidney Transplantation. Transplantation
2014
,98, 1310–1315.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
Lefaucheur, C.; Loupy, A.; Hill, G.S.; Andrade, J.; Nochy, D.; Antoine, C.; Gautreau, C.; Charron, D.; Glotz, D.; Suberbielle-Boissel,
C. Preexisting donor-specific HLA antibodies predict outcome in kidney transplantation. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
2010
,21, 1398–1406.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Hönger, G.; Hopfer, H.; Arnold, M.L.; Spriewald, B.M.; Schaub, S.; Amico, P. Pretransplant IgG subclasses of donor-specific
human leukocyte antigen antibodies and development of antibodymediated rejection. Transplantation
2011
,92, 41–47. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
35.
Cicciarelli, J.C.; Kasahara, N.; Lemp, N.A.; Adamson, R.; Dembitsky, W.; Browne, B.; Steinberg, S. Immunoglobulin G subclass
analysis of HLA donor specific antibodies in heart and renal transplant recipients. Clin. Transpl. 2013,2013, 413–422.
36.
Loupy, A.; Jordan, S.C. Donor-specific HLA antibodies and renal allograft failure. Nat. Rev. Nephrol.
2013
,9, 130–131. [CrossRef]
37.
Loupy, A.; Suberbielle-Boissel, C.; Hill, G.S.; Lefaucheur, C.; Anglicheau, D.; Zuber, J.; Martinez, F.; Thervet, E.; Mejean,
A.; Charron, D.; et al. Outcome of subclinical antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant recipients with preformed
donor-specific antibodies. Am. J. Transplant. 2009,9, 2561–2570. [CrossRef]
38.
Wiebe, C.; Gibson, I.W.; Blydt-Hansen, T.D.; Pochinco, D.; Birk, P.E.; Ho, J.; Karpinski, M.; Goldberg, A.; Storsley, L.; Rush, D.N.;
et al. Rates and determinants of progression to graft failure in kidney allograft recipients with de novo donorspecifific antibody.
Am. J. Transplant. 2015,15, 2921–2930. [CrossRef]
39.
Böhmig, G.A.; Eskandary, F.; Doberer, K.; Halloran, P.F. The therapeutic challenge of late antibody-mediated kidney allograft
rejection. Transpl. Int. 2019,32, 775–788. [CrossRef]
40.
Dunn, T.B.; Noreen, H.; Gillingham, K.; Maurer, D.; Ozturk, O.G.; Pruett, T.L.; Gebel, H.M.; Matas, A.J. Revisiting traditional risk
factors for rejection and graft loss after kidney transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2011,11, 2132–2143. [CrossRef]
41.
Meier-Kriesche, H.U.; Schold, J.D.; Srinivas, T.R.; Kaplan, B. Lack of improvement in renal allograft survival despite a marked
decrease in acute rejection rates over the most recent era. Am. J. Transplant. 2004,4, 378–383. [CrossRef]
42.
Randhawa, P. T-cell-mediated rejection of the kidney in the era of donor-specific antibodies: Diagnostic challenges and clinical
significance. Curr. Opin. Organ Transplant. 2015,20, 325–332. [CrossRef]
43.
Naesens, M.; Kuypers, D.R.; De Vusser, K.; Evenepoel, P.; Claes, K.; Bammens, B.; Meijers, B.; Sprangers, B.; Pirenne, J.; Monbaliu,
D.; et al. The histology of kidney transplant failure: A long-term follow-up study. Transplantation 2014,98, 427–435. [CrossRef]
44.
Hillebrands, J.L.; Rozing, J. Chronic transplant dysfunction and transplant arteriosclerosis: New insights into underlying
mechanisms. Expert Rev. Mol. Med. 2003,5, 1–23. [CrossRef]
45.
Lefaucheur, C.; Loupy, A.; Vernerey, D.; Duog-Van-Huyen, J.P.; Suberbielle, C.; Anglicheau, D.; Verine, J.; Beuscart, T.; Nochy,
D.; Bruneval, P.; et al. Antibody-mediated vascular rejection of kidney allografts: A population-based study. Lancet
2013
,381,
313–319. [CrossRef]
46.
Oberbauer, R. Progression of interstitial fibrosis in kidney transplantation. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
2016
,11, 2110–2112.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Patri, P.; Seshan, S.V.; Matignon, M.; Matignon, M.; Desvaux, D.; Lee, J.R.; Lee, J.; Dadhania, D.M.; Serur, D.; Grimbert, P.; et al.
Development and validation of a prognostic index for allograft outcome in kidney recipients with transplant glomerulopathy.
Kidney Int. 2016,89, 450–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]