Définition et standardisation des bilans d’histocompatibilité en fonction du parcours du patient et du type de donneur : recommandations de la Société francophone de greffe de moelle et de thérapie cellulaire (SFGM-TC) et de la Société Francophone d’Histocompatibilité et Immunogénétique (SFHI)

Dubois, Valérie; Amokrane, Kahina; Crocchiolo, Roberto; Fort, Marylise; Guillaume, Nicolas; Kennel, Anne; Michiels, Sandra; Ralazamahaleo, Mamy; Rouzaire, Paul; Yakoub‐Agha, Ibrahim; Faucher, Catherine

doi:10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.01.024

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Moreover, this information about anti-HLA antibodies is useful for donor selection for HLAmismatched transplant candidates. 5 It is important to reduce anti-HLA immunization before haploidentical HSCT by limiting the number of platelet transfusions (which is nevertheless difficult to do in the event of bleeding) or by selecting platelet components (PCs) with a limited risk of secondary anti-HLA immunization. Although full avoidance of the formation of anti-HLA antibodies after platelet transfusions is probably impossible, avoidance of the formation of antibodies against the mismatched donor's HLAs appears to be feasible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that platelet transfusion is the main risk factor for the emergence of anti‐HLA class I antibodies in haploidentical allograft candidates, the assessment of these antibodies can help to avoid platelet‐transfusion refractoriness 4 . Moreover, this information about anti‐HLA antibodies is useful for donor selection for HLA‐mismatched transplant candidates 5 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Platelet transfusions in haploidentical haematopoietic stem cell allograft candidates: Protecting HLA‐A and HLA‐B antigens through eplet analysis

Durand,

Desoutter,

Lorriaux

et al. 2024

HLA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In patients awaiting an allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, platelet transfusion is a risk factor for anti‐HLA class I immunization because the resulting donor‐specific antibodies complicate the allograft process. The objective of the present study was to determine the feasibility of a novel eplet‐based strategy for identifying HLA class I mismatches between potential donors and the recipient when pre‐allograft platelet transfusions were required. We included 114 recipient/haploidentical relative pairs. For each pair, we entered HLA‐class I typing data into the HLA Eplet Mismatch calculator, defined the list of mismatched eplets (for the recipient versus donor direction) and thus identified the shared HLAs to be avoided. Using this list of HLAs, we defined the theoretical availability of platelet components (PCs) by calculating the virtual panel‐reactive antibody (vPRA). We also determined the number of PCs actually available in France by querying the regional transfusion centre's database. The mean ± standard deviation number of highly/moderately exposed eplets to be avoided in platelet transfusions was 5.8 ± 3.3, which led to the prohibition of 38.5 ± 2 HLAs‐A and ‐B. Taking into account the mismatched antigens and the eplet load, the mean ± standard deviation theoretical availability of PCs (according to the vPRA) was respectively 34.49% ± 1.95% for HLA‐A and 80% ± 2.3% for HLA‐B. A vPRA value below 94.9% for highly or moderately exposed eplets would predict that 10 PCs were actually available nationally. Although epitope protection of HLA molecules is feasible, it significantly restricts the choice of PCs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%