Development of donor specific antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination:What do we know so far?

Vaccination against Coronavirus disease-19(COVID-19)was pivotal to limit spread,morbidity and mortality.Our aim is to find out whether vaccines against COVID-19 lead to an immunological response stimulating the production of de novo donor specific antibodies(DSAs)or increase in mean fluorescence intensity(MFI)of pre-existing DSAs in kidney transplant recipients(KTRs).This study involved a detailed literature search through December 2nd,2023 using PubMed as the primary database.The search strategy incorporated a combination of relevant Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords:"COVID-19","SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination","Kidney,Renal Transplant",and"Donor specific antibodies".The results from related studies were collated and analyzed.A total of 6 studies were identified,encompassing 460 KTRs vaccinated against COVID-19.Immunological responses were detected in 8 KTRs of which 5 had increased MFIs,1 had de novo DSA,and 2 were categorized as either having de novo DSA or increased MFI.There were 48 KTRs with pre-existing DSAs prior to vaccination,but one study(Massa et al)did not report whether pre-existing DSAs were associated with post vaccination outcomes.Of the remaining 5 studies,35 KTRs with pre-existing DSAs were identified of which 7 KTRs(20%)developed de novo DSAs or increased MFIs.Overall,no immunological response was detected in 452(98.3%)KTRs.Our study affirms prior reports that COVID-19 vaccination is safe for KTRs,especially if there are no pre-existing DSAs.However,if KTRs have pre-existing DSAs,then an increased immunological risk may be present.These findings need to be taken cautiously as they are based on a limited number of patients so further studies are still needed for confirmation.

Acute liver failure secondary to acute antibody mediated rejection after compatible liver transplant: A case report

BACKGROUND The liver has traditionally been regarded as resistant to antibody-mediated rejection(AMR).AMR in liver transplants is a field in its infancy compared to kidney and lung transplants.In our case we present a patient with alpha-1-antitrypsin disease who underwent ABO compatible liver transplant complicated by acute liver failure(ALF)with evidence of antibody mediated rejection on allograft biopsy and elevated serum donor-specific antibodies(DSA).This case highlights the need for further investigations and heightened awareness for timely diagnosis.CASE SUMMARY A 56 year-old woman with alpha-1-antitrypsin disease underwent ABO compatible liver transplant from a deceased donor.The recipient MELD at the time of transplant was 28.The flow cytometric crossmatches were noted to be positive for T and B lymphocytes.The patient had an uneventful recovery postoperatively.Starting on postoperative day 5 the patient developed fevers,elevated liver function tests,distributive shock,renal failure,and hepatic encephalopathy.She went into ALF with evidence of antibody mediated rejection with portal inflammation,bile duct injury,endothelitis,and extensive centrizonal necrosis,and C4d staining on allograft biopsy and elevated DSA.Despite various interventions including plasmapheresis and immunomodulating therapy,she continued to deteriorate.She was relisted and successfully underwent liver retransplantation.CONCLUSION This very rare case highlights AMR as the cause of ALF following liver transplant requiring retransplantation.

Biomarkers in kidney transplantation: From bench to bedside

Immunosuppressive drug level monitoring and serum creatinine are widely used for kidney transplantation （KT） monitoring. Monitoring of drug level is not the direct measurement of the immune response while the rising of creatinine is too late for detection of allograft injury. Kidney biopsy, the gold standard for KT monitoring, is invasive and may lead to complications. Many biomarkers have been discovered for direct monitoring of the immune system in KT and the beneft of some biomarkers has reached clinical level. In order to use biomarkers for KT monitoring, physicians have to understand the biology including kinetics of each marker. This can guide biomarker selection for specific condition. Herein, we summarize the recent fndings of donor specifc anti-human leukocyte antigen antibody, B lymphocyte stimulator, interferon-gamma induced protein of 10 kDa, and intracellular adenosine triphosphate monitoring, all of which have very strong evidence support for the clinical use in KT.

Anti-human leukocyte antigens and anti-major histocompatibility complex class I-related chain A antibody expression in kidney transplantation during a four-year follow-up

Background Humoral immunity is an important factor for long-term survival of renal allograft. Here we performed a four-year follow-up to explore the clinical significance of monitoring anti-human leukocyte antigens （HLA） and anti-major histocompatibility complex class I-related chain A （MICA） antibody expression after kidney transplantation. Methods We obtained serial serum samples from 84 kidney transplant patients over a four-year period. All patients were followed up at least 6 months after transplantation and had at least two follow-up points. Anti-HLA and anti-MICA antibody titres and serum creatinine （SCr） levels were evaluated at each follow-up. Patients were divided into 4 groups： HLA（＋） MICA（-）, HLA（-）MICA（＋）, HLA（＋）MICA（＋） and HLA（-）MICA（-）. The impact of post-transplant antibody level on kidney allograft function was evaluated. Results Antibodies were detected in 38.1% （32/84） of the renal allograft recipients. HLA, MICA and HLA＋MICA expression was observed in 18.89%, 14.44% and 5.93% of the recipients respectively. The most frequent anti-HLA and anti-MICA specific antibodies identified were All, A24, A29, A32, A33, A80; B7, B13, B37; DR17, DR12, DR18, DR52, DR53, DR1, DR4, DR9, DR51; DQ7, DQ4, DQ8, DQ2, DQ9, DQ5, DQ6 and MICA02, MICA18, MICA19, MICA07, MICA27. As the time after transplantation elapsed, more recipients developed de novo antibody expression. Total 11.91% （10/84） of the recipients had de novo antibody expression during the follow up. The average level of SCr and the percentage of recipients with abnormal allograft function were significantly higher in recipients with anti-HLA and/or anti- MICA antibody expression than those without. The appearance of anti-HLA and anti-MICA antibody expression always preceded the increase in SCr value. Conclusions Anti-HLA and anti-MICA antibody expression has predictive value for early and late allograft dysfunction. The presence of donor specific antibody is detrimental to graft function and graft survival.

Impact of human leukocyte antigen matching and recipients＇ panel reactive antibodies on two-year outcome in presensitized renal allograft recipients

Background Renal transplantation in sensitized candidates remains a highly significant challenge worldwide. The production of panel reactive antibody （PRA） against human leukocyte antigen （HLA） is a major risk factor in presensitized recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of HLA matching and recipients＇ PRA on two-year outcome in presensitized renal allograft recipients. Methods We determined the percentage of panel reactivity and specificity of anti-HLA immunoglobulin （Ig） G antibodies in 73 presensitized renal allograft recipients compared with 81 unsensitized recipients （control group）. HLA genotyping of both recipients and corresponding donors was performed by PCR with sequence-specific primers （PCR-SSP）. We analyzed the factors influencing the early graft outcome （two-year rejection rates and survival rates of the grafts）, including HLA mismatching, class and degree of panel reactivity, and target antigen of donors. Results Presensitized recipients had a worse two-year outcome than unsensitized recipients （P=0.019 for rejection rate, P=0.01 for survival rate）. The difference in number of HLA-mismatched alleles with either 6-antigen matching （Ag M） standard or amino acid residue matching （Res M） standard was not significant between the rejection and non-rejection groups of presensitized recipients or between the graft survival group and graft loss group. Compared with the control group, recipients with both PRA-I and PRA-II antibodies had a significantly worse two-year outcome （P=0.001 for rejection rate, P=0.002 for survival rate）. The two-year outcomes of the peak PRA 〉50% group and its subgroup, at-transplant PRA 〉50% group, were significantly worse compared with the control group （P=0.025 and P=0.001 for rejection rate, P=0.043 and P=0.024 for survival rate）. The rejection rates of the at-transplant target antigen positive group and its subgroup, HLA-I target antigen positive group, were significantly higher than the control group （P=0.001 and P=-0.001）, target antigen negative group （P=0.003 and P=0.001）, and peak target antigen positive with negative at-transplant target antigen group （P=0.024 and ,0=-0.002）. Two-year graft survival rates of the target antigen positive group and HLA-I target antigen positive group were significantly lower than the control group （P=0.012 and ,P=0.001）. The two-year outcome of target antigen unknown group was similar to that of the target antigen positive group. Presensitized recipients with pre-transplant plasmapheresis or immunoadsorption （PRA prepared group） had a better but non-significant two-year outcome than the control group. However, the PRA unprepared presensitized recipients were different to the control group （P=-0.004 for rejection rate and P=-0.005 for survival rate）. Hyperacute rejection （HR） occurred in three recipients with positive HLA-I target antigen and without mismatch according to Res M and in one case with positive PRA-II （for an unknown target antigen）. No HR occurred in eight cases with positive HLA-II target antigens. Conclusions Pre-transplant PRA preparations might improve the access of presensitized patients to renal donors. Avoiding antigen-positive donors remains a fundamental measure in preventing HR and early rejections.