We analyzed 60 patients with idiopathic early allograft loss (defined as death or retransplantation <90 days) to determine the relative contribution of preformed donor specific HLA alloantibodies (DSA) to this endpoint and defined strict criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in liver allografts. Inclusion criteria encompassed availability of a pre-transplant serum sample and both post-reperfusion and follow-up tissue specimens for “blinded” retrospective re-review of histology and C4d staining. AMR was diagnosed based on the presence of all 4 strict criteria: 1) DSA in serum; 2) histopathological evidence of diffuse microvascular injury/microvasculitis, consistent with antibody-mediated injury; 3) diffuse C4d staining in the portal microvasculature with or without staining in the sinusoids or central veins in at least one sample; and 4) exclusion of other causes of a similar type of injury. Patients thought to be experiencing definite AMR on the basis of routine histopathology alone showed the highest levels of DSA sensitization. Forty percent of patients with pre-transplant DSA with a pattern of bead saturation after serial dilutions developed AMR. One additional multiparous female developed, what appeared to be, a strong “recall” response resulting in combined AMR and ACR causing graft failure. A contribution of DSA to allograft failure could not be excluded in three additional patients who received marginal grafts. In conclusion, liver allograft recipients with high mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) preformed DSA despite dilution seem to be at risk for clinically significant allograft injury, and possibly loss, from AMR often in combination with ACR.

Hyperacute kidney rejection is unusual in crossmatch positive recipients of simultaneous liver-kidney transplants (SLKT). However, recent data suggest that these patients remain at risk for antibody-mediated kidney rejection. To further investigate the risk associated with donor-specific alloantibodies (DSA) in SLKT, we studied 86 consecutive SLKT patients with an available pre-SLKT serum sample. Serum samples were analyzed in a blinded fashion for HLA DSA using single antigen beads (median florescence intensity ≥ 2,000 = positive). Post-SLKT samples were analyzed when available (76%). Thirty patients had preformed DSA, and nine developed de novo DSA. Preformed class I DSA did not change the risk of rejection, patient or allograft survival. In contrast, preformed class II DSA was associated with a markedly increased risk of renal antibody mediated rejection (AMR) (p = 0.006), liver allograft rejection (p = 0.002), patient death (p = 0.02), liver allograft loss (p = 0.02) and renal allograft loss (p = 0.045). Multivariable modeling showed class II DSA (preformed or de novo) to be an independent predictor of patient death (HR = 2.2; p = 0.043) and liver allograft loss (HR = 2.2; p = 0.044). These data warrant reconsideration of the approach to DSA in SLKT.

Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) occurs in a minority of sensitized liver transplant recipients. Although histopathologic characteristics have been described, a generalizable scoring system used to trigger a more in-depth analysis is needed to screen for this rare but important finding. Toward this goal, we created a training and validation cohort from 3 high volume liver transplant programs of putative acute AMR and control cases that were evaluated blindly by 4 independent transplant pathologists. The evaluations were performed on H&E sections alone without knowledge of serum DSA results nor C4d stains. Characteristics strongly correlated with acute AMR included portal eosinophilia (OR=4.37, p<0.001), portal vein endothelial cell hypertrophy (OR=2.88, p<0.001), and eosinophilic central venulitis (OR=2.48, p=0.003). These and other characteristics were incorporated into models created from the training cohort alone. The final Acute-AMR (aAMR) score exhibited a strong correlation with acute AMR in the training (OR=2.86, p<0.001) and validation cohort (OR=2.49, p<0.001). SPSS tree classification was used to select 2 cutoffs, one that optimized specificity at a score >1.75 (sensitivity = 34%, specificity = 87%) and a second that optimized sensitivity at a score >1.0 (sensitivity = 81%, specificity = 71%). In conclusion, routine histopathological features of the aAMR score can be used to screen for acute AMR on routine H&E in liver transplant biopsies, a diagnosis that requires substantiation by donor-specific HLA alloantibody testing, C4d staining, and exclusion of other insults.

Amyloidosis is caused by extracellular deposition of proteins in an insoluble manner within tissues. In hereditary forms of amyloidosis, transthyretin, fibrinogen A-α, lysozyme, gelsolin, apolipoprotein A-I, and A-II accumulate in the tissue plaques. Here we describe a 52-year-old man with no family history of renal disease who presented with increased urinary frequency, gradual loss of renal function but no significant proteinuria. Renal biopsy found large amounts of amyloid restricted to the medulla with no involvement of glomeruli or vessels. Immunohistochemical analysis for transthyretin or serum amyloid A and tests for an underlying monoclonal gammopathy were negative. Although initially suspected to be amyloid light chain amyloidosis, laser microdissection and mass spectrometry showed that the amyloid was composed of large amounts of apolipoprotein A-IV. This was based on mass spectrometry studies that showed 100, 96, and 73 spectra in three microdissected samples that matched to apolipoprotein A-IV with 100% probability. DNA analyses detected three sequence variants representing common polymorphisms of the apolipoprotein A-IV gene. Thus, in this case, apolipoprotein A-IV deposition and renal involvement appear to be restricted to the medulla. A high degree of suspicion is required for the diagnosis of apolipoprotein A-IV amyloidosis as it may be missed if a renal biopsy consists only of cortex.

No abstract