Skip to main content
Log in

Monitoring after renal transplantation: recommendations and caveats

  • Practice Point
  • Published:

From Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

Abstract

This commentary discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a recent study reported by Kobayashi and colleagues, in which paired serum samples from 297 renal transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between December 1972 and September 2004 were tested for the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody at two discrete time points following surgery (2004 and 2006). Urine samples collected on the same day as the serum samples, were also measured for urinary protein levels. The results of the study suggest that patients with a positive change in HLA antibody status in the post-transplantation period (i.e. from negative to positive) plus a positive urine protein test were at increased risk of developing graft dysfunction (i.e. increased serum creatinine level). Solely on the basis of these data, the authors advocate that patients should be monitored annually for de novo production of HLA antibodies and for an increased urinary protein level by use of simple and cost-effective approaches to assess the risk of graft dysfunction or failure. While the proposal is an intriguing one, this commentary identifies several issues and limitations regarding post-transplantation monitoring that should be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Kobayashi T et al. (2008) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for human leukocyte antigen antibody detection and urine protein test recommended for follow-up monitoring after renal transplantation. Transplantation 85: 1595–1600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Patel R and Terasaki PI (1969) Significance of a positive crossmatch test in kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med 280: 735–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bray RA et al. (2004) Evolution of antibody detection: technology emulating biology. Immunol Res 29: 41–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gebel HM and Bray RA (2000) Sensitization and sensitivity: defining the unsensitized patient. Transplantation 69: 1370–1374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bray RA et al. (2006) Transplanting the highly sensitized patient: the Emory algorithm. Am J Transplant 6: 2307–2315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Terasaki PI and Cai J (2008) Human leukocyte antigen antibodies and chronic rejection: from association to causation. Transplantation 86: 377–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schaub S et al. (2008) Proteomics and renal transplantation: searching for novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets. Contrib Nephrol 160: 65–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A Bray.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

RA Bray is a consultant for One Lambda. HM Gebel is a consultant for One Lambda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bray, R., Gebel, H. Monitoring after renal transplantation: recommendations and caveats. Nat Rev Nephrol 4, 658–659 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneph0968

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneph0968

  • Springer Nature Limited

Navigation