Central European Journal of Medicine

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 317–321 | Cite as

HLA antibody screening strategy in patients awaiting kidney transplantation

Research Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The reactivity between donor’s Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) and recipient’s anti-HLA antibody in pretransplantation assessment is one of the critical factors to determining successful outcome of renal transplantation.

Objective

The aim of present study was to compare different techniques of HLA antibody detection in patients waiting for a kidney transplant.

Methods

Two techniques of HLA antibody screening were compared: the complement-dependent citotoxicity (CDC) test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The study included 606 sera samples of 236 patients waiting for a first kidney transplantation.

Results

Of 606 tested sera, 469 (77.39%) were negative by both methods. Of the 137 (22.6%) positive sera, 73 (12.04%) were positive only by ELISA method, 48 (7.92%) by both CDC and ELISA methods and 16 (2.64%) only by CDC method. There was a significant (p<0.05) correlation between optical densities obtained by ELISA and the PRA determined by cytotoxicity testing.

Conclusion

Fast and precise characterisation of antibodies in patients before transplantation can be performed by both methods, CDC and ELISA, as complementary techniques. ELISA method is more sensitive and effective than CDC, enabling significant reduction of the CDC workload of the laboratory, but can be used only as adjunct to serum screening by citotoxic testing.

Keywords

Antibodies Human Leukocyte Antigens ELISA Kidney transplantation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Slavcev A. Donor-specific antibodies and kidney transplant rejection. Annals of Transplantation 2003; 8(3):12–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Muro M, Ljorenze S, Marin L, Moya-Quiles MR, et al. Acute vascular rejection mediated by HLA antibodies in a cadaveric kidney recipient: discrepancies between FlowPRATM, ELISA and CDC vs luminex screening. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2005;20:223–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Amico P, Honger G, Mayr M, Schaub S. Detection of HLA antibodies prior renal transplantation: prospects and limitations of new assays. Swiss Medical Weekly 2008; 138(33–34):472–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Pelletier RP, Adams PW, Hennessy PK, Orosz CG. Comparison of crossmatch results obtained by ELISA, flow cytometry, and conventional methodologies. Humman Immunology 1999; 60(9):855–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Goggins R, Geiselhart L. Antibody screening beyond tears. ASHI Qarterly. Second Quarter 2003:70–72Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Moise A, Nedelcu D, Toader A, Sora M, Tica A, Ferastraoaru DE, Constantinescu I. Cytotoxic antibodies — valuable prognostic factor for long term kidney allograft survival. Journal of Medicine and Life 2010; 3(4):390–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Lucas DP, Paparounis ML, Myers L, Hart JM, et al. Detection of HLA class I-specific antibodies by the QuickScreen Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 1997; 4(3):252–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Tait BD, Hudson F, Cantwell L, Brewin G, et al. Luminex technology for HLA antibody detection in organ transplantation. Nephrology 2009; 14:247–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Minucci PB, Grimaldi V, Casamassimi A, Cacciatore F, et al. Methodologies for Anti-HLA Antibody Screening in Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplant: A Comparative Study. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation 2011; 9(6):381–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Lefaucheur C, Loupy A, Hill GS, Andrade J, et al. Preexisting Donor-Specific HLA Antibodies Predict Outcome in Kidney Transplantation. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2010;21:1398–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Altermann WW, Seliger B, Sel S, Wendt D, et al. Comparison of the established standard complement-dependent cytotoxicity and flow cytometric crossmatch assays with a novel ELISA-based HLA crossmatch procedure. Histology and Histopathology. 2006; 21:1115–1124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Schlaf G, Pollok-Kopp B, Manzke T, Schurat O et al. Novel solid phase-based ELISA assays contribute to an improved detection of anti-HLA antibodies and to an increased reliability of pre- and posttransplant crossmatching. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2010; 3:527–538Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Puttarajappa C, Shapiro R, Tan HP. Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Kidney Transplantation: A Review. Journal of Transplantation. 2012:193724Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kissmeyer-Nielsen F, Olsen S, Petersen VP, Fjeldborg O. Hyperacute rejection of kidney allografts, associated with pre-existing humoral antibodies against donor cells. Lancet 1966; 2(7465):662–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kao KJ, Scornik JC, Small SJ. Enzyme-linked immunoassay for anti-HLA antobodies — an alternative to panel studies by lymphocytotoxicity. Transplantation 1993; 55(1):192–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Moore BA, Ploeger NA, DeGoey SR. HLA antibody screening: Comparison of a solid phase Enzyme-Linked Immunoassay with antiglobulin-augmented lymphocytotoxicity. Transplantation 1997; 64(11):1617–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Braun WE. Laboratory and clinical management of the highly sensitized organ transplant recipient. Humman Immunology 1989; 26(4):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kang E-S, Kim S-J, Choi KB, Chung KY. Continuous monitoring of donor specific anti-HLA antibody in kidney transplantation patients. The Journal of the Korean Society for Transplantation 2009; 23:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Slavcev A, Lacha J, Sajdlova H, Vitko Š, et al. Characterisation of patient antibodies after kidney transplantation. Annals of Transplantation 2001; 6(2):12–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Tiercy JM, Cattin S, Pongratz G, Goumaz C, et al. A complementary strategy for pretransplant HLA antibody screening. Transplant Proceedings 2002; 34:850–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Worthington JE, Langton A, Liggett H, Robson AJ, et al. A novel strategy for the detection and definition of HLA-specific antibodies in patients awaiting renal transplantation. Transplant International 1998; Suppl 1:S372–S376Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Fernandez-Fresnedo G, Pastor JM, Lopez-Hoyos M, Ruiz JC, et al. Relationship of donor-specific class-I anti-HLA antibodies detected by ELISA after kidney transplantation on the development of acute rejection and graft survival. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2003; 18:990–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Arnold ML, Zacher T, Dechant M, Kalden JR, et al. Detection and specification of noncomplement binding anti-HLA alloantibodies. Humman Immunology 2004; 65(11):1288–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Flesch B. Laboratory diagnostics of HLA antibodies. Laboratoriums Medizin 2003; 27(9–10):351–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Jaramillo A, Smith MA, Phelan D, Sundaresan S, et al. Development of ELISA-detected anti-HLA antibodies precedes the development of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome and correlates with progresive decline in pulmonary function after lung transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 67(8):1155–1161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svetlana Vojvodić
    • 1
  • Dušica Ademović-Sazdanić
    • 1
  1. 1.Tissue Typing Compartment, Department for laboratory testingInstitute for Blood Transfusion of VojvodinaNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations