Context.— The blood bank is often consulted for transfusion support of patients with suspected platelet transfusion refractoriness (PTR). The workup is complex because testing includes specialized assays that are uncommonly ordered with limited availability. Add to this the variety of possible products—crossmatched platelets, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched platelets, HLA antigen–negative platelets—and the approach to PTR can be overwhelming. Moreover, most literature on the subject is published in transfusion medicine journals aimed at transfusion medicine physicians and blood bank specialists in academic settings. Resources tailored to community hospital blood banks are lacking. Objective.— To provide pathologists who may not have subspecialized training in transfusion medicine and who direct blood bank algorithmic workflows based on clinical scenario and test availability to provide appropriate transfusion support for patients with PTR. Data Sources.— This review is a comprehensive overview of terminology, HLA testing procedures, interpretations, and practical recommendations for managing PTR in various scenarios based on expert opinion as well as relevant medical literature published from 2007 to 2022. Conclusions.— Consultation on PTR is complicated and encompasses many clinical and laboratory aspects. The lack of guidelines derived from high-quality prospective studies poses challenges in the workup and management of PTR. Hindering the process further are limited test availability, unfamiliarity with the technical assays, and the various specialized platelet products. The clinical evaluation algorithm presented herein along with the workflow pathways offer pathologists user-friendly and best-practice guidelines with different options based on the clinical scenario and the tests available.
Abstract 18156: Donor Specific Alloantibodies to HLA II Antigens Result in Accelerated Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy Assessed by 3d Volumetric Ivus
BACKGROUND: The immunologic risk associated with preformed donor-specific allo-antibodies (DSA) against human leukocyte antigens (HLA) in heart transplant (HTX) recipients is unclear. The goal of this study was to evaluate potential role of DSA on the progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in HTX recipients. METHODS: The presence of DSA against HLA was evaluated using solid phase Single Antigen Bead assay (One Lambda, Inc., Canoga Park, CA; Luminex platform) before transplant in 35 HTX recipients. Using alloantibody specification analysis, 11% (4/35) and 20% (7/35) had DSA against donor Class I and II HLA respectively including the one patient who had both (DSA I & II+) . 71% (25/35) of patients had no demonstrable DSA (DSA-). All patients had negative cytotoxicity cross match. Baseline three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound studies (3D IVUS) were performed at 1.0 [0.18, 1.4] year after transplant. Follow up 3D IVUS exams were performed 0.92 [0.85, 1.04] years after the baseline exam. RESULTS: The increase in mean plaque (media and intima) volume (PV) was accelerated in the DSA II+ group as compared to the DSA- group (0.87±1.9 mm (3)/mm vs. 0.16±1.8 mm (3)/mm) but the vessel volume index (follow up vessel volume/ baseline vessel volume) was similar between groups (1.08±0.5 vs. 1.09± 0.4; p=0.9). Plaque index (PI) (PV/vessel volume x 100 [%]) increased significantly in the DSA II+ group (17.9±6.3%) but not in the DSA- group (-13.6±13.2%, P=0.02). None of these values were significant in the DSA I+ only group. Treatment with Sirolimus did not affect PI progression between the DSA II+ and DSA- groups (PI progression: 15.9±8.7% vs. -11.7±7.1%, P=0.03). Age, gender, lipid and uric acid levels, prevalence of diabetes, ischemic time, time between IVUS examinations, the use of steroids, mycophenolate vs. azathioprine or calcineurin inhibitors vs. sirolimus were not different between the groups (P>0.4 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplant recipients with clearly defined anti-Class II DSA are at risk for accelerated cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Whether interventions to minimize the risk of DSA such as virtual crossmatch, desensitization and complement inhibition will retard CAV remains to be proven.
Highly Sensitized Candidates Remain at Risk for Microvascular Inflammation Even When Donor-specific Antibody Is Avoided: A Matched Cohort Study
Background. Microvascular inflammation (MVI) is a key feature of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) among patients with HLA donor-specific antibody (DSA), but MVI at AMR thresholds (Banff glomerulitis [g] + peritubular capillaritis [ptc] score ≥ 2) without DSA has been increasingly recognized. We aimed to determine the incidence of MVI among highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients without DSA. Methods. We performed a single-center, retrospective, matched cohort study comparing outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with cPRA ≥90% with preexisting DSA (n = 49), cPRA ≥90% without preexisting DSA (n = 47), and matched controls with cPRA = 0 without preexisting DSA (n = 49). Controls were matched by age, donor type, and transplant date. Indication and surveillance biopsies combined with annual de novo DSA screening were obtained. Results. Kidney transplant recipients with a cPRA ≥90% and no evidence of preexisting or de novo DSA had a higher incidence of MVI (glomerulitis + peritubular capillaritis ≥ 2) than patients with cPRA = 0 [35% (17/49) versus 12% (6/49), P = 0.0003] over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 5 (4–6) y posttransplant. Among this cPRA ≥90% group without DSA, MVI persisted in 54% of cases on follow-up biopsy (7/13), and 24% (4/13) of cases developed transplant glomerulopathy (Banff cg score > 0). Conclusions. Highly sensitized transplant recipients have a high incidence of persistent and progressive MVI, even without DSA. The mechanisms underlying these histologic features needs to be elucidated, but this information is important to consider when making decisions about transplantation among highly sensitized individuals.
Clinical/ Immunopathological Presentations and Antigen-specific CD8+ T Cell Responses in Paraneoplastic Autoimmune KLHL11 Encephalitis (1185)
Context Gene editing–based therapies are currently in development in the areas of oncology, inherited disease, and infectious disease. These potentially life-altering therapies are derived from decades of research in both academic and industry settings that developed technologies rooted in principles and products of nature. However, with such technologic developments come many important considerations, including adverse risks, high cost, and ethical questions. Objective To educate pathologists about gene editing technologies, inform them of potential indications and risks, outline regulatory and practical issues that could affect hospital-based practice and laboratory testing, and advocate that pathologists need to be present at discussions among industry and regulators pertaining to gene editing–based therapies. Design A Gene Editing Workgroup, facilitated by the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee and consisting of pathologists of various backgrounds, was convened to develop an educational paper to serve as a stimulus to increase pathologist involvement and inquiry in gene editing therapeutic and diagnostic implementation. Results Through multiple discussions and literature review, the workgroup identified potential gaps in pathologists' knowledge of gene editing. Additional topics that could impact pathology and laboratory medicine were also identified and summarized in order to facilitate pathologists as stakeholders in gene editing therapy administration and monitoring and potential use in diagnostics. Conclusions Gene editing therapy is a complex but potentially transformative area of medicine. This article serves as an introduction to pathologists to assist them in future discussions with colleagues and potentially identify and alter pathology practices that relate to gene editing.
A Review of Laboratory Practices Using the HLA-B27 Survey by the College of American Pathologists: How Important Is Allele-Level Typing?
Context.— Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an autoimmune disorder with a strong genetic risk, especially with HLA-B27. Clinical testing for HLA-B27 has been used to help diagnose patients with signs and symptoms of AS. Testing methods used by clinical laboratories for HLA-B27 fall into the broad categories of serologic/antibody- or molecular-based methods and have evolved over time. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) offers a proficiency testing survey for HLA-B27. Objective.— To analyze HLA-B27 testing trends and their performance in the past decade, using the proficiency testing survey data submitted to CAP. Design.— We analyzed the HLA-B27 CAP proficiency testing data from 2010 to 2020 for the method used, participant concordance, and error rates. Results from case scenarios to understand evolving scientific data around HLA-B27 risk alleles were also analyzed. Results.— Antibody-based flow cytometry is the most common method, though it has decreased from 60% in 2010 to 52% in 2020, with a corresponding increase in molecular methods. Among the molecular methods, real-time polymerase chain reaction has increased from 2% to 15%. Flow cytometry had the highest error rate (5.33%), and sequence-specific oligonucleotide (0%) is the most accurate (0%). Results of case scenarios demonstrated that most participants understood that allele-level HLA-B27 typing results inform clinical interpretation, for example HLA-B*27:06 is not associated with AS. Conclusions.— These data demonstrated the changing trends for HLA-B27 testing during the past decade. HLA-B27 allelic typing provides a better understanding of AS association. This is possible by testing for the second field with methods like next-generation sequencing.
Clinical impact of KIR haplotypes in 10/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor-recipient pairs undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
AbstractBackgroundSolid‐phase platelet crossmatch (PXM) testing is used to help manage patients with platelet transfusion‐refractoriness. Recently, we published the first report of false‐negative PXM results from prozone effect that was mitigated using sample dilution. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of PXM prozone effect and the levels of class I HLA antibodies (HLA‐Abs) associated with positive PXM results and with false‐negative PXM results from prozone effect.Study Design and MethodsA cross‐sectional study of patients undergoing PXM testing from July 2019 through December 2020 was performed. All PXM tests were run simultaneously using undiluted and 1:4 diluted patient plasma. Prozone effect was defined as a negative PXM result using undiluted patient plasma but a positive PXM result using 1:4 diluted patient plasma.ResultsAmong 59 patients, 830 individual ABO‐compatible PXM results yielded an overall positivity rate of 25.8% (214/830) and a false‐negative rate from prozone effect of 4.7% (10/214). Among the 28 patients with class I HLA‐Ab testing and no other anti‐platelet antibodies, maximum HLA‐Ab mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was significantly associated with a positive PXM result (p < .0001; AUC approx. 0.9) and categorized into negative (<3700), indeterminate (3700–10300), and positive (>10300) maximum HLA‐Ab MFI zones. Maximum HLA‐Ab MFI, however, was not associated with prozone effect (p = .17; AUC approx. 0.6).DiscussionWhile there is a strong predictive association between class I HLA‐Ab levels and positive PXM results, PXM prozone effect is a common occurrence not associated with class I HLA‐Ab levels, so additional testing with diluted samples should be considered.