The presence of preexisting (memory) or de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSAs) is a known barrier to successful long-term organ transplantation. Yet, despite the fact that laboratory tools and our understanding of histocompatibility have advanced significantly in recent years, the criteria to define presence of a DSA and assign a level of risk for a given DSA vary markedly between centers. A collaborative effort between the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics and the American Society of Transplantation provided the logistical support for generating a dedicated multidisciplinary working group, which included experts in histocompatibility as well as kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation. The goals were to perform a critical review of biologically driven, state-of-the-art, clinical diagnostics literature and to provide clinical practice recommendations based on expert assessment of quality and strength of evidence. The results of the Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) meeting are summarized here, providing recommendations on the definition and utilization of HLA diagnostic testing, and a framework for clinical assessment of risk for a memory or a primary alloimmune response. The definitions, recommendations, risk framework, and highlighted gaps in knowledge are intended to spur research that will inform the next STAR Working Group meeting in 2019.

Noninvasive biomarkers are needed to monitor stable patients after kidney transplant (KT), because subclinical acute rejection (subAR), currently detectable only with surveillance biopsies, can lead to chronic rejection and graft loss. We conducted a multicenter study to develop a blood-based molecular biomarker for subAR using peripheral blood paired with surveillance biopsies and strict clinical phenotyping algorithms for discovery and validation. At a predefined threshold, 72% to 75% of KT recipients achieved a negative biomarker test correlating with the absence of subAR (negative predictive value: 78%-88%), while a positive test was obtained in 25% to 28% correlating with the presence of subAR (positive predictive value: 47%-61%). The clinical phenotype and biomarker independently and statistically correlated with a composite clinical endpoint (renal function, biopsy-proved acute rejection, ≥grade 2 interstitial fibrosis, and tubular atrophy), as well as with de novo donor-specific antibodies. We also found that <50% showed histologic improvement of subAR on follow-up biopsies despite treatment and that the biomarker could predict this outcome. Our data suggest that a blood-based biomarker that reduces the need for the indiscriminate use of invasive surveillance biopsies and that correlates with transplant outcomes could be used to monitor KT recipients with stable renal function, including after treatment for subAR, potentially improving KT outcomes.

Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) is found in approximately 25% of 1-year biopsies posttransplant. It is known that IFTA correlates with decreased graft survival when histological evidence of inflammation is present. Identifying the mechanistic etiology of IFTA is important to understanding why long-term graft survival has not changed as expected despite improved immunosuppression and dramatically reduced rates of clinical acute rejection (AR) (Services UDoHaH. http://www.ustransplant.org/ annual_reports/current/509a_ki.htm). Gene expression profiles of 234 graft biopsy samples were obtained with matching clinical and outcome data. Eighty-one IFTA biopsies were divided into subphenotypes by degree of histological inflammation: IFTA with AR, IFTA with inflammation, and IFTA without inflammation. Samples with AR (n = 54) and normally functioning transplants (TX; n = 99) were used in comparisons. A novel analysis using gene coexpression networks revealed that all IFTA phenotypes were strongly enriched for dysregulated gene pathways and these were shared with the biopsy profiles of AR, including IFTA samples without histological evidence of inflammation. Thus, by molecular profiling we demonstrate that most IFTA samples have ongoing immune-mediated injury or chronic rejection that is more sensitively detected by gene expression profiling. These molecular biopsy profiles correlated with future graft loss in IFTA samples without inflammation.

BackgroundAnti-human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (anti-HLA DSAs) are recognized as a major barrier to patients’ access to organ transplantation and the major cause of graft failure. The capacity of circulating anti-HLA DSAs to activate complement has been suggested as a potential biomarker for optimizing graft allocation and improving the rate of successful transplantations.Methods and findingsTo address the clinical relevance of complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs across all solid organ transplant patients, we performed a meta-analysis of their association with transplant outcome through a systematic review, from inception to January 31, 2018. The primary outcome was allograft loss, and the secondary outcome was allograft rejection. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted through several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus).A total of 5,861 eligible citations were identified. A total of 37 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies reported on 7,936 patients, including kidney (n = 5,991), liver (n = 1,459), heart (n = 370), and lung recipients (n = 116). Solid organ transplant recipients with circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs experienced an increased risk of allograft loss (pooled HR 3.09; 95% CI 2.55–3.74, P = 0.001; I2 = 29.3%), and allograft rejection (pooled HR 3.75; 95% CI: 2.05–6.87, P = 0.001; I2 = 69.8%) compared to patients without complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs. The association between circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs and allograft failure was consistent across all subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Limitations of the study are the observational and retrospective design of almost all included studies, the higher proportion of kidney recipients compared to other solid organ transplant recipients, and the inclusion of fewer studies investigating allograft rejection.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs had a significant deleterious impact on solid organ transplant survival and risk of rejection. The detection of complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs may add value at an individual patient level for noninvasive biomarker-guided risk stratification.Trial registrationNational Clinical Trial protocol ID: NCT03438058.

Rationale & Objective: African American (AA) live kidney donors (‘donors’) have a greater risk of kidney failure than do European American donors. Apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) variants in AAs may be associated with this disparity. Study Design: Cross-sectional, mixed-methods design. Setting & Participants: AA donors at one transplant center. Analytic Approach: Semi-structured interviews assessed attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing, willingness to undergo APOL1 testing, hypothetical decisions about donating with two APOL1 variants, and demographics. Surveys assessed perceptions of ethnic identity and genetics knowledge. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Twenty-three donors participated in semi-structured interviews. Most (96%) reported that transplant centers should routinely offer APOL1 genetic testing to all AA potential donors. Most (87%) would have been willing to undergo APOL1 testing before donating. Although study participants noted that APOL1 testing may deter AA potential donors from donating, most (61%) would have donated even if they had two high risk APOL1 variants. Several themes emerged. Study participants believed that APOL1 testing would have provided information helpful to donors’ ability to make informed donation decisions. Participants expressed concern about APOL1 variants placing donors at harm for kidney failure and, therefore, valued taking preventive health measures. Participants believed that potential donors would experience psychological distress from learning they have two gene variants and could harm their recipients. Participants were apprehensive about insurance coverage and costs of APOL1 testing and feared that APOL1 genetic test results could discriminate against AAs. Limitations: Findings may not be generalizable to AA potential donors. Conclusions: Findings suggest that AA donors support APOL1 genetic testing, yet fear that APOL1 variants and genetic testing could adversely affect donors’ health and ethnic identity. Transplant centers using APOL1 genetic testing should address AA donors’ concerns about APOL1 genetic testing to optimize future donors’ informed consent practices.