MO1001THE OUTCOME OF PLASMA CELL-RICH ACUTE REJECTION IN KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION, IS IT REALLY POOR?. (29th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mahmoud, Tarek S H; Gheith, Osama; Yagan, Jude; Al-Taleb, Ahmad; MA Halim, Medhat; Nair, Prasad; Alotaibi, Torki
• Is Part Of: Nephrology dialysis transplantation. Volume 36(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-05-29
• Subjects: Nephrology -- Periodicals; Hemodialysis -- Periodicals; Kidneys -- Transplantation -- Periodicals; Hemodialysis; Kidneys -- Transplantation; Nephrology; Periodicals; 616.61
• DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfab111.0025
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0931-0509

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Aims: The outcome of Plasma cell-rich acute rejection (PCAR) in kidney transplant is reported to be poor. However, PCAR which can be associated with any type of rejection, may not be considered as independent morphological prognostic feature. Different treatment modalities were prescribed with variable responses. We report here four cases of PCAR and describe their presentations, type of rejection, associated conditions and treatment outcome. Method: Out of 1920 kidney transplant recipients under follow up in our centre from 1996 till 2019, four patients were reported to have PCAR according to 2007 Banff classification. They were re-evaluated based on 2015 Banff classification. The treatment protocol was tailored according to the type of rejection and associated conditions. Results: The four patients, aged 28, 44, 46 and 54 years, had live unrelated renal transplant done somewhere abroad with no data about donor HLA typing. Two of them were females. One had high PRA and she was positive for HBsAg. One patient received induction immunosuppression with basiliximab. They all received prednisolone, mycophenolate and cyclosporine as the maintenance immunosuppression and had immediate graft function. Rejection happened between 23 to 180 months post-transplant. Two patients had acute T-cell mediated Banff 1A rejections with features consistent with early membranous nephropathy. One had acute T-cell mediated rejection Banff 1B and the fourth had borderline T-cell mediated rejection with morphological changes suggestive of chronic active antibody mediated rejection (AMR). Plasma cells constituted 10 to 30% of the interstitial infiltration. All patients received solumedrol pulse. Both patients with features of membranous nephropathy received rituximab and one of them had additionally IVIG. The patient with AMR received plasma exchange and IVIG. However, she did not receive rituximab as she was positive for HBsAg. All patients responded well to treatment and the mean improvement in eGFR was 12.8%, 24.9%, 40.3% and 39.1% at 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months post treatment. Repeat kidney biopsy at 3 to 12 weeks post treatment showed resolution of plasma cell infiltration in all patients. Conclusion: Outcome of PCAR management was favourable among our patients irrespective of the type of rejection and associated conditions.