Citations

AbstractBackgroundAs low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) increases in popularity, blood centers are finding innovative ways of maintaining the supply. One potential way is collecting LTOWB from parous female donors without testing for HLA antibodies. This in silico simulation predicted the risk of an LTOWB unit containing an HLA antibody and the subsequent risk for an HLA‐incompatible transfusion.MethodsAn LTOWB blood bank with 1 million units was simulated consisting of male, nulliparous, and parous female donors. The proportion of each donor type was modeled after the sex distribution at US blood centers. The parity of female donors was calculated based on the average number of live births per female depending on her age. HLA‐alloimmunization risk was determined by her parity status. The HLA haplotypes of the simulated recipients were derived from the 100 most common HLA haplotypes in the US National Marrow Registry Program database. The proportion of different race/ethnic groups in the US was used to simulate 100,000 LTOWB recipients to whom between 1 and 10 units were administered.ResultsOverall, the risk of an LTOWB unit containing at least one HLA antibody was 12.2% and the rate of receiving an HLA‐incompatible unit was 21.3%. The risk of receiving an HLA‐incompatible unit rose from 4.8% after receipt of one unit to 36.5% after 10 units.ConclusionBlood collectors and hospitals should evaluate the potential TRALI risk against the benefit of a potentially expanded inventory of LTOWB before collecting plasma‐containing products from non‐HLA‐tested parous female donors.

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.

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.

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.

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.