C1Q Assay Results in Complement-Dependent Cytotoxicity Crossmatch Negative Renal Transplant Candidates with Donor-Specific Antibodies: High Specificity but Low Sensitivity When Predicting Flow Crossmatch

  • Arreola-Guerra J
  • Castelán N
  • de Santiago A
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to describe the association of positive flow cross match (FXM) and C1q-SAB. Methods . In this observational, cross-sectional, and comparative study, patients included had negative AHG-CDC-XM and donor specific antibodies (DSA) and were tested with FXM. All pretransplant sera were tested with C1q-SAB assay. Results . A total of 50 donor/recipient evaluations were conducted; half of them had at least one C1q+ Ab ( n=26 , 52%). Ten patients (20.0%) had DSA C1q+ Ab. Twenty-five (50%) FXMs were positive. Factors associated with a positive FXM were the presence of C1q+ Ab (DSA C1q+ Ab: OR 27, 2.80–259.56, P=0.004 , and no DSA C1q+ Ab: OR 5, 1.27–19.68, P=0.021 ) and the DSA LABScreen-SAB MFI (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06–1.49, P=0.007 ). The cutoff point of immunodominant LABScreen SAB DSA-MFI with the greatest sensitivity and specificity to predict FXM was 2,300 (sensitivity: 72% and specificity: 75%). For FXM prediction, DSA C1q+ Ab was the most specific (95.8%, 85–100) and the combination of DSA-MFI > 2,300 and C1q+ Ab was the most sensitive (92.0%, 79.3–100). Conclusions . C1q+ Ab and LABScreen SAB DSA-MFI were significantly associated with FXM. DSA C1q+ Ab was highly specific but with low sensitivity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Arreola-Guerra, J. M., Castelán, N., de Santiago, A., Arvizu, A., Gonzalez-Tableros, N., López, M., … Alberú, J. (2016). C1Q Assay Results in Complement-Dependent Cytotoxicity Crossmatch Negative Renal Transplant Candidates with Donor-Specific Antibodies: High Specificity but Low Sensitivity When Predicting Flow Crossmatch. Journal of Transplantation, 2016, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2106028

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free