HLAMatchmaker: A molecularly based algorithm for histocompatibility determination. IV. An alternative strategy to increase the number of compatible donors for highly sensitized patients

Transplantation

Volumn 75, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 889-897

  Duquesnoy, Rene J ^a   Howe, Judy ^a   Takemoto, Steve ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; HLA A ANTIGEN; HLA B ANTIGEN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HLA MATCHING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIZATION; TREATMENT PLANNING; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AUTOANTIBODIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HISTOCOMPATIBILITY TESTING; HLA-A ANTIGENS; HLA-B ANTIGENS; HUMANS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 0037468703     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000055097.58209.83     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Takemoto S, Terasaki P, Gjertson D, et al. Twelve years' experience with national sharing of HLA-matched cadaveric kidneys for transplantation. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1078-1084.
2. Takemoto SK, Cecka JM, Terasaki PI. Benefits of HLA-CREG matching for sensitized recipients as illustrated in kidney regrafts. Transplant Proc 1997; 29(1-2): 1417.
3. Thompson JS, Bryne JE, Hempel HO, et al. Computer algorithm that predicts both acceptable and unacceptable private and public HLA class I antigens in highly sensitized patients. Transplant Proc 1993; 25(1 pt 1): 251-254.
4. Takemoto S, Gjertson DW, Terasaki PI. HLA matching: Maximizing the number of compatible transplants. Clin Transpl 1993: 521-531.
5. McKenna RM, Lee KR, Gough JC, et al. Matching for private and public HLA epitopes reduces acute rejection and improves two-year renal allograft function. Transplantation 1998; 66: 38-42.
6. Thompson J, Thacker L, Takemoto S. CREG matching for first kidney transplants performed by SEOPF centers between October 1987 and September 1995: An analysis of outcome and prospective benefit. Transplant Proc 1997; 29(1-2): 1435-1438.
7. Thompson J, Thacker L, Takemoto S. The influence of conventional and cross-reactive group HLA matching on cardiac transplant outcome: An analysis from the United Network of Organ Sharing Scientific Registry. Transplantation 2000; 69: 2178-2186.
8. Scantlebury V, Gjertson D, Eliasziw M, et al. Influence Of HLA and CREG matching in African-American primary cadaver kidney recipients: UNOS 1991-1995. Transplant Proc 1997; 29(8): 3733-3736.
9. Starzl TE, Eliasziw M, Gjertson D, et al. HLA and cross-reactive antigen group matching for cadaver kidney allocation. Transplantation 1997; 64(7): 983-991.
10. Wujciak T, Opelz G. Evaluation of the permissible mismatch concept. Transpl Int 1996; 9(suppl 1): S8-S10.
11. Fernandez-Fresnedo G, Pastor JM, Ruiz JC, et al. Differences in anti-CREG antibody formation between transplanted and non-transplanted renal patients. Transplantation 1999; 67: 1188-1193.
12. Stobbe I, Van der Meer-Prins EMW, De Lange P, et al. Cross-reactive group matching does not lead to a better allocation and survival of donor kidneys. Transplantation 2000; 70: 157-161.
13. Duquesnoy RJ. HLAMatchmaker: A molecularly based algorithm for histocompatibility determination. I. Description of the algorithm. Hum Immunol 2002; 63: 339-352.
14. Duquesnoy RJ. HLAMatchmaker: A molecularly based donor selection algorithm for highly alloimmunized patients. Transplant Proc 2001; 33: 493-497.
15. Duquesnoy RJ, Marrari M. HLAMatchmaker: A molecularly based algorithm for histocompatibility determination. II. Verification of the algorithm and determination of the relative immunogenicity of amino acid triplet-defined epitopes. Hum Immunol 2002; 63: 353-363.
16. Duquesnoy RJ, Takemoto S, De Lange P, et al. HLAMatchmaker: A molecularly based algorithm for histocompatibility determination. III. Effect of matching at the HLA-A, B amino acid triplet level on kidney transplant survival. Transplantation 2003; 75(6): 884-889.
17. Wolfe R, Ashby V, Milford E, et al. Differences in access to cadaveric renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 36: 1025-1033.
18. Duquesnoy RJ, Wituliet M, Doxiadix IIN, de Fijter H, Claas FHJ. HLAMatchmaker-based strategy to identify acceptable HLA-Class I mismatches for highly sensitized kidney transplant candidates. Transpl Int 2003 (in press).
19. Rodey GE, Fuller TC. Public epitopes and the antigenic structure of the HLA molecules [review]. Crit Rev Immunol 1987; 7(3): 229-267.
20. Claas FH, van Leeuwen A, van Rood JJ. Hyperimmunized patients do not need to wait for an HLA identical donor [review]. Tissue Antigens 1989; 34(1): 23-29.
21. Claas FHJ, De Meester J, Witvliet MD, et al. Acceptable HLA mismatches for highly immunized patients. Rev Immunogenet 1999; 1: 351-358.
22. Duquesnoy R, Marrari M, Awadalla Y, et al. HLAMatchmaker based serum analysis for identifying acceptable and unacceptable HLA antigen mismatches for highly sensitized patients [Abstract]. Hum Immunol 2002; 63(Suppl): S85.
23. Lobashevsky AL, Senkbeil RW, Shoaf JL, et al. The number of amino acid residues mismatches correlates with flow cytometry crossmatching results in high PRA patients. Hum Immunol 2002; 63: 365-373.
24. Vorhaben R, Pervis K, Lavingia B, et al. Predictive values for a negative crossmatch of sensitized renal recipients: Triplet amino acid matching vs CREG matching [abstract]. Hum Immunol 2001; 62(suppl 1): S32.
25. Class FHJ. Predictive parameters for in vivo alloreactivity. Transpl Immunol 2002; 10: 137-142.