Antibody-mediated Kidney Allograft Rejection Research Articles

Antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection: therapeutic options and their experimental rationale

With the advent of novel therapies to directly intervene with B cell immunity and complement activation, antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection (AMR) has come into the focus of transplant immunologists. Intravenous immunoglobulin, rituximab, bortezomib, and eculizumab have been used to treat patients with acute AMR, apart from the standard treatment of antibody removal with plasma exchange or immunoadsorption and steroid pulses. This article describes the experimental rationale and summarizes the still limited clinical experience with these novel therapies in the transplant setting. Results with the standard treatment for acute AMR, including intense plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulins, and steroids are good with a graft survival of 80% at 18 months. In contrast, patients suffering from chronic AMR have significant irreversible damage in their grafts with substantially impaired graft survival. Thus, the authors propose a step-wise escalation of therapy in refractory cases of acute AMR and advocate an urgent need for controlled therapeutic trials for acute and chronic AMR not to inflict unnecessary harm on our patients by uncontrolled polypragmasy.

Molecular Phenotypes of Acute Rejection Predict Kidney Graft Prognosis

Earlier detection of antibody-mediated rejection of kidney allografts may improve graft outcomes. Profiling of gene expression holds promise for the diagnosis and prognosis of antibody-mediated rejection. Here, we identified 730 patients who received kidney transplants during 2002-2005, including 21 patients (2.9%) who experienced early acute antibody-mediated rejection. We also identified a matched group of 43 patients with early acute T cell-mediated rejection to serve as controls. Compared with patients with T cell-mediated rejection, those with antibody-mediated rejection had significantly higher intrarenal mRNA expression of the cytoprotective heme oxygenase-1 but had lower expression of the regulatory T cell marker forkhead box P3 (FoxP3), the B cell marker CD20, and the chemokine regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES). T cell infiltration was similar in both groups of patients. Compared with grafts that had a favorable course, those that failed as a result of antibody-mediated rejection had expression profiles suggesting a lack of regulation (less FoxP3, TGF-beta1, RANTES, and CD20). Grafts that failed as a result of T cell-mediated rejection only revealed lower expression of CD20 mRNA. In summary, these data suggest that severe antibody-mediated rejection and T cell-mediated rejection result in graft loss by distinct mechanisms. Molecular phenotypes of early acute rejection might help to identify grafts with poor prognosis, allowing earlier application of additional therapies.

Rituximab and Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment of Chronic Antibody-Mediated Kidney Allograft Rejection

Kidney transplant rejections are classified into T-cell-mediated and antibody-mediated rejections (AMR). C4d staining on allograft biopsies and solid-phase assays to measure donor-specific alloantibodies have helped to precisely define the latter. Although for acute AMRs, therapy mainly relies on plasmapheresis or immunoadsorption, no studies for treatment of chronic AMR are available. Here, we report on four kidney allograft recipients suffering from chronic AMR 1 to 27 years posttransplant, who were treated with a combination of rituximab and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Rituximab/IVIG improved kidney allograft function in all four patients, whereas donor-specific antibodies were reduced in 2 of 4 patients. However, in one patient an acute rejection episode occurred 12 months after this treatment, and another patient had severe, possibly rituximab-associated lung toxicity. Thus, rituximab/IVIG may be a useful strategy for the treatment of chronic AMR, but further randomized multicenter studies are necessary to establish its efficacy and safety profile.

Acute and Hyperacute Humoral Rejection in Kidney Allograft Recipients Treated with Anti-Human Thymocyte Antibodies

Equine and rabbit antihuman thymocyte globulins (ATGs) have been used in renal transplantation for prevention and treatment of acute rejection. We now report that hyperacute and acute antibody-mediated rejection of renal allografts occurred in three newly transplanted patients who received ATG for induction therapy. Antibody studies performed using complement-dependent cytotoxicity, flow cytometry, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and Luminex yielded negative results for antilymphocytic and antiendothelial cell antibodies in the pretransplant sera obtained from these patients. ATG treatment was initiated at the time of transplantation. One of the patients experienced hyperacute rejection and required transplant nephrectomy within 24 h of transplantation. The other two patients developed acute antibody-mediated rejection within 14 days after transplantation. None of the patients developed antihuman leukocyte antigen antibodies when humoral rejection occurred. However, xenoantibodies that strongly bound to human lymphocytes and, importantly, to activated endothelial cells, were identified in the sera obtained at the time of humoral rejection. Hence, our results strongly implicate ATG in the induction of antibody-mediated rejection of kidney allografts. Flow cytometry testing of ATG reactivity to endothelial cells may be useful in identifying and discarding the ATG lots containing xenoantibodies that can bind to activated endothelial cells of the transplant.

Diagnosis and treatment of antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection

Diagnosis and treatment of antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection

Diagnosis and treatment of antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection.

Evidence of a significant pathogenetic role of donor-reactive antibodies (DRA) in kidney allograft rejection is accumulating. At least, partially owing to the recent discovery of the complement split product C4d as a valuable rejection marker, antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) has regained increasing attention. We review here the value of various diagnostic criteria, including immunohistochemistry (C4d staining), histomorphology and posttransplant serology, for the diagnosis of AMR. Furthermore, the mechanisms underlying alloantibody/complement-mediated allograft injury are discussed in detail. Finally, a thorough discussion of recently proposed "anti-humoral" therapeutic strategies is provided.

Capillary C4d deposition in kidney allografts: a specific marker of alloantibody-dependent graft injury.

Capillary deposition of the complement split product C4d has been discussed as a marker for antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection. The relationship between C4d staining and posttransplant alloantibody detection remains to be thoroughly investigated, however. In this study, C4d staining in peritubular capillaries (PTC) and the incidence of alloantibody formation, as detected with sensitive techniques, were evaluated among a cohort of transplant recipients who had undergone biopsies and had not been selected for a specific histologic diagnosis. One hundred thirteen biopsies, obtained from 58 cadaveric kidney transplant recipients, were tested. Serum samples obtained at the time of biopsy were evaluated by flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM) testing and FlowPRA (One Lambda, Inc., Canoga Park, CA) analysis of anti-HLA panel reactivity. Most biopsies with C4d deposits in PTC (C4d(PTC)(+), n = 21 of 24) were associated with positive posttransplant FCXM results (T and/or B cell FCXM) and/or > or =5% FlowPRA (anti-HLA class I and/or II) reactivity. Approximately 50% of the C4d(PTC)(-) biopsies were observed to be associated with donor-specific alloantibodies. Accordingly, high specificity (93%) but low sensitivity (31%) were calculated for capillary C4d staining (with FCXM testing as the standard method). For clinical evaluation, three patient groups were defined, i.e., a group of recipients with positive C4d staining in at least one allograft biopsy (C4d(PTC)(+), n = 16) and two C4d(PTC)(-) groups, which were discriminated on the basis of posttransplant FCXM results as C4d(PTC)(-)/FCXM(+) (n = 22) and C4d(PTC)(-)/FCXM(-) (n = 20) groups. Univariate analyses revealed significant differences between these groups with respect to serum creatinine levels at 12 mo [median, 2.83 mg/dl (interquartile range, 1.93 to 4.2 mg/dl) versus 1.78 mg/dl (1.47 to 2.24 mg/dl) versus 1.59 mg/dl (1.2 to 1.71 mg/dl), P < 0.001]. Of the five immunologic graft losses, four occurred in the C4d(PTC)(+) group and one occurred in the C4d(PTC)(-)/FCXM(+) group. In a multivariate analysis, C4d positivity was observed to have an independent predictive value for inferior 12-mo graft function (P = 0.02), whereas the observed moderate difference between C4d(PTC)(-)/FCXM(+) and C4d(PTC)(-)/FCXM(-) recipients did not achieve significance. In conclusion, these data demonstrate that positive C4d staining, which is an independent predictor of kidney graft dysfunction, represents a reliable specific marker for antibody-dependent graft injury.