Kraus, Edward S.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe diagnosis of antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR) requires input from several transplant professionals. Bringing clinical and laboratory experts together may help standardize care. Yet, little is known about current global practices of multidisciplinary meetings for AMR management.MethodsThe Banff Antibody‐Mediated Injury Working Group approached professional societies worldwide to distribute a survey on the availability, content, participants, perceived value, and barriers to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings.ResultsFour hundred two transplant professionals from six continents caring for kidney (90.55%), liver (21.14%), pancreas (20.65%), heart (15.17%), and lung (14.18%) transplant recipients participated in the survey, and 302 (75.12%) reported attending multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary meetings were more prevalent in academic centers, in high‐ versus low‐to‐middle‐income regions (81.03% and 65.99%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in mid‐to‐large size transplant programs compared to smaller programs. Perceived value included continued professional development (97.68%) and trainee education (95.70%). AMR was reported to be discussed at these meetings by 217 respondents with case presentations reviewing patient characteristics, histology, and HLA antibody data. A third of the respondents reviewed non‐HLA/pathogenic autoantibodies and/or molecular diagnostics, with the latter being more frequently applied in high‐ versus low‐to‐middle‐income regions (46.71% and 12.31%, respectively; p < 0.001). AMR case presentations allowed diagnosis revision, actionable management plans and were perceived as improving care. The primary barrier to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings (63.27%) was the unavailability of transplant professionals (e.g., transplant immunologists).ConclusionFacilitating multidisciplinary meetings through the remote participation of pertinent experts and incentivizing participation through remuneration, protected time, or continued medical education may help standardize AMR diagnosis and harmonize its management.

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.