Getting on target: Development of the novel,prozone-resistant,dual antibody rapid test (DART) for the LABScreen single antigen bead (SAB) assay

A major limitation of the single antigen bead (SAB) assay is the so called prozone effect, whereby the detection of high titer complement fixing HLA antibodies is compromised due to complement split product (from C3 and C4 components) deposition and interference with the reporter anti-IgG-PE antibody binding. Strategies to minimize prozone include serum titration or treatment with heat, dithiotreitol (DTT), or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). While effective, these treatments may compromise HLA antibody binding and detection. Here we describe the Dual Antibody Rapid Test (DART), a modified version of the rapid optimized SAB (ROB) protocol, in which we use an IgG-PE/C3d-PE antibody cocktail to simultaneously detect bead bound IgG and C3d, which allows for detection of HLA antibodies independent of the prozone effect. Twenty prozone positive sera (10 class I and 10 class II), identified by titration, were tested by the ROB protocol, with or without EDTA pre-treatment, using three reporter antibody cocktails: (1) IgG-PE, (2) C3d-PE, or (3) IgG-PE/C3d-PE (DART). Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) values were then compared. IgG negative (n = 735) vs IgG positive (n = 1185) reactions were identified using a 1000 MFI IgG EDTA cutoff. IgG positive reactions were classified based on ΔMFI (IgG EDTA – IgG) as follows: (1) prozone negative (ΔMFI < 3000; n = 737), (2) slight prozone (ΔMFI 3001–5000; n = 49), (3) moderate prozone (ΔMFI 5001–10,000; n = 93), and (4) marked prozone (ΔMFI > 10,001; n = 306). No C3d deposition was present on IgG negative beads, and the majority of prozone positive specificities (438/448; 98%) fixed complement and were detected with the C3d-PE reporter. Interestingly, C3d-PE MFI was directly proportional to the degree of prozone (mean C3d-PE MFI = 4419.5 ± 1606.3 for slight, 5991.0 ± 2302.7 for moderate, and 12,417.4 ± 2969.9 for marked prozone specificities). Interestingly, EDTA treatment was found to have a negative impact on MFI of up to 15% of prozone negative specificities. Importantly, the DART protocol detected all prozone positive specificities while MFI for prozone negative specificities correlated well with those seen with the IgG-PE reporter alone (R² = 0.97). In conclusion, the DART protocol accurately detects HLA antibodies independent of the prozone effect. Implementation of DART is an easy way to overcome the prozone effect without compromising HLA antibody detection.     

Inter and intra laboratory concordance of HLA antibody results obtained by single antigen bead based assay

Single antigen bead based assays (SAB) to identify antibodies to HLA are marketed as a qualitative test, however often used as a quantitative test as the results provide mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) which is found to correlate with the strength/avidity of the antibody. We studied the between and within laboratory variability in performing the SAB from one manufacturer. Ten samples were tested at four laboratories according to the manufacturer’s suggested protocol. Additionally same samples were tested on four consecutive days in one laboratory. All tests were performed using the same lot of beads and secondary antibody. Results were classified as positive at four different MFI cutoffs: 1000, 5000, 8000 and 10,000. MFI values across and within the laboratory were compared in a pair-wise fashion with Pearson’s correlations. Overall concordance for Class-I was 97% between laboratories and 98% within laboratory at all cutoffs. Pair-wise Pearson correlation between laboratories was 0.989–0.99, while within laboratory it was 0.998–0.999. For Class-II, overall concordance between and within laboratory was 98%. Pair-wise Pearson correlation between laboratories was 0.991–0.997, while within laboratory it was 0.997–0.999. There is good correlation between laboratories and within laboratory using the same manufacturer, same lot and same protocol while performing SAB.     

HLA compatibility assessment and management of highly sensitized patients under the new kidney allocation system (KAS): A 2016 status report from twelve HLA laboratories across the U.S.

Twelve HLA laboratories were surveyed to assess the methods and operational issues involved to define highly sensitized patients and to assess HLA compatibility under the new kidney allocation system (KAS) in the U.S. All laboratories used single antigen bead assays both pre- and post-KAS to define both broad and allele-specific HLA antibodies. The methods and threshold used to list HLA unacceptable antigens in UNet for virtual crossmatch (vXM) and the criteria used for determining HLA compatibility varied among laboratories. Laboratories reported several limitations of the current assays including the accuracy of quantifiable antibody fluorescence values, inadequate coverage of common alleles on the bead panels, and challenges in calibrating the vXM. The new KAS has resulted in a significant surge of deceased donor organ offers requiring vXM evaluation under tight time constraints. In the post-KAS period, eight of twelve laboratories (67%) indicated that their center did not proceed to transplant based on vXM without a prospective lymphocyte crossmatch. In conclusion, HLA laboratories play a critical role in deceased donor allocation for highly sensitized patients under the new KAS. Significant opportunities exist to improve the methods used in the assessment of HLA compatibility to safely transplant highly sensitized patients.     

(F)Utility of the physical crossmatch for living donor evaluations in the age of the virtual crossmatch

Flow cytometric crossmatches (FCXM) are routinely performed to support living-donor renal transplantation. While long a laboratory mainstay, a physical crossmatch is costly, time consuming, and frequently poses interpretative conundrums with both false-positive and false- negative results. Given the increased utilization of the virtual crossmatch (vXM) in the deceased donor setting, our aim was to assess its utility in living donor evaluations. We reviewed 100 living donor FCXMs and retrospectively performed a vXM for each pair. Seventy-five (75) cases were concordant, (i.e., FCXM?/vXM? or FCXM+/vXM+) while 25 cases were discordant; Five were vXM+/FCXM? and 20 were FCXM+/vXM?. Since donor-specific antibodies (DSA) were not detected in the 20 FCXM+/vXM? cases, these were interpreted as false-positive, i.e., due to non-HLA antibodies. Importantly, none of these patients, when transplanted across a positive FCXM, experienced early antibody mediated rejection or subsequently developed HLA DSA. These data reveal that, for the vast majority of living donor evaluations, a vXM is an acceptable vetting procedure.