The efficacy of extracorporeal photopheresis to arrest bronchiolitis obliterans in lung allograft recipients was compared between two automated photopheresis instruments.

BACKGROUND: The most common instruments used for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) treatment in the United States are the UVAR XTS and the CELLEX devices (Therakos, West Chester, PA). When compared to the UVAR XTS instrument, the efficacy of the CELLEX instrument to arrest the decline in lung function in patients with chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) related to bronchiolitis obliterans (BOS) has not been previously evaluated. METHODS: The relative efficacy of the CELLEX vs UVAR XTS ECP instruments was assessed by comparing the difference in rates of FEV1 decline before and after ECP treatment and survival in two series of lung allograft recipients with BOS who had been treated with these instruments. RESULTS: Similar Slope Difference values for change in rate of decline (6 months Post ECP - Pre ECP) were observed between the two cohorts (UVAR XTS: 85 +/- 109 mL/month vs CELLEX: 76 +/- 128 mL/month, p=0.72). A similar percentage of patients responded to ECP (UVAR XTS: 77% vs CELLEX: 89%; p=0.36) i.e., as defined as a positive difference in slope between the rate of decline of FEV1 before and 6 months after ECP. Survival at either 6 (p=0.89) or 12 (p=0.8) months after the start of ECP was not associated with instrument used despite a trend in higher early mortality (34% vs 17%, p=0.054) in the patients who were predominately treated with the CELLEX. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the use of the CELLEX for prospective studies designed to evaluate the merits of ECP in this population. Copyright © 2018 AABB.
BACKGROUND:
There is no standard definition for “HLA incompatible” transplants. For the first time, we systematically assessed how HLA incompatibility was defined in contemporary peer-reviewed publications and its prognostic implication to transplant outcomes.
 
METHODS:
We combined 2 independent searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2015 to 2019. Content-expert reviewers screened for original research on outcomes of HLA-incompatible transplants (defined as allele or molecular mismatch and solid-phase or cell-based assays). We ascertained the completeness of reporting on a predefined set of variables assessing HLA incompatibility, therapies, and outcomes. Given significant heterogeneity, we conducted narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias in studies examining the association between death-censored graft failure and HLA incompatibility.
 
RESULTS:
Of 6656 screened articles, 163 evaluated transplant outcomes by HLA incompatibility. Most articles reported on cytotoxic/flow T-cell crossmatches (n = 98). Molecular genotypes were reported for selected loci at the allele-group level. Sixteen articles reported on epitope compatibility. Pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies were often considered (n = 143); yet there was heterogeneity in sample handling, assay procedure, and incomplete reporting on donor-specific HLA antibodies assignment. Induction (n = 129) and maintenance immunosuppression (n = 140) were frequently mentioned but less so rejection treatment (n = 72) and desensitization (n = 70). Studies assessing death-censored graft failure risk by HLA incompatibility were vulnerable to bias in the participant, predictor, and analysis domains.
 
CONCLUSIONS:
Optimization of transplant outcomes and personalized care depends on accurate HLA compatibility assessment. Reporting on a standard set of variables will help assess generalizability of research, allow knowledge synthesis, and facilitate international collaboration in clinical trials.