- Transfusion Medicine. 2021 Aug; 31(4):292-302.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) to attenuate the rate of decline of FEV1 in lung transplant recipients with refractory bronchiolitis obliterans. Due to an observed higher than expected early mortality, a preliminary analysis was performed. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects from 10 lung transplant centres were assigned to ECP treatment or to observation based on spirometric criteria, with potential crossover for those under observation. The primary endpoint of this study was to assess response to ECP (i.e., greater than a 50% decrease in the rate of FEV1 decline) before and 6 months after initiation of ECP. Mortality was also evaluated 6 and 12 months after enrolment as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Of 44 enrolled subjects, 31 were assigned to ECP treatment while 13 were initially assigned to observation on a non-random basis using specific spirometric inclusion criteria (seven of the observation patients subsequently crossed over to receive ECP). Of evaluable patients, 95% of patients initially assigned to treatment responded to ECP with rates of FEV1 decline that were reduced by 93% in evaluable ECP-treated patients. Mortality rates (percentages) at 6 and 12 months after enrolment was 32% and 41%, respectively. The most common (92%) primary cause of death was respiratory or graft failure. Significantly (p = 0.002) higher rates of FEV1 decline were observed in the non-survivors (-212 +/- 177 ml/month) when compared to the survivors (-95 +/- 117 ml/month) 12 months after enrolment. In addition, 18 patients with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) diagnosis within 6 months of enrolment had lost 38% of their baseline lung function at BOS diagnosis and 50% of their lung function at enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that earlier detection and treatment of BOS should be considered to appreciate improved outcomes with ECP. Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Transfusion Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Blood Transfusion Society.
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
Â
