Jane C. Tan MD, PhD , Jane P. Kim PhD , Glenn M. Chertow MD, MPH , F. Carl Grumet MD , Manisha Desai PhD
{"title":"Donor–Recipient Sex Mismatch in Kidney Transplantation","authors":"Jane C. Tan MD, PhD , Jane P. Kim PhD , Glenn M. Chertow MD, MPH , F. Carl Grumet MD , Manisha Desai PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.genm.2012.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The lack of reliable human proxies for minor (ie, non-HLA) histocompatibility loci<span> hampers the ability to leverage these factors toward improving transplant outcomes. Despite conflicting reports of the effect of donor–recipient sex mismatch on renal allografts<span>, the association between acute rejection<span> of renal allografts and the development of human alloantibodies to the male H-Y antigen suggested to us that donor–recipient sex mismatch deserved re-evaluation.</span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate whether the relationships between donor sex and allograft failure differed by recipient sex.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We studied recipients of deceased-donor (n = 125,369) and living-donor (n = 63,139) transplants in the United States Renal Data System. Using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by donor type, we estimated the association between donor–recipient sex mismatch and death-censored allograft failure with adjustment for known risk factors, with and without the use of multiple imputation methods to account for potential bias and/or loss of efficiency due to missing data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The advantage afforded by male donor kidneys was more pronounced among male than among female recipients (8% vs 2% relative risk reduction; interaction </span><em>P</em> < 0.01). This difference is of the order of magnitude of several other risk factors affecting donor selection decisions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p><span>Donor–recipient sex mismatch affects renal allograft survival in a direction consistent with immune responses to sexually determined </span>minor histocompatibility antigens. Our study provides a paradigm for clinical detection of markers for minor histocompatibility loci.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55124,"journal":{"name":"Gender Medicine","volume":"9 5","pages":"Pages 335-347.e2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.genm.2012.07.004","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gender Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550857912001350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38
Abstract
Background
The lack of reliable human proxies for minor (ie, non-HLA) histocompatibility loci hampers the ability to leverage these factors toward improving transplant outcomes. Despite conflicting reports of the effect of donor–recipient sex mismatch on renal allografts, the association between acute rejection of renal allografts and the development of human alloantibodies to the male H-Y antigen suggested to us that donor–recipient sex mismatch deserved re-evaluation.
Objective
To evaluate whether the relationships between donor sex and allograft failure differed by recipient sex.
Methods
We studied recipients of deceased-donor (n = 125,369) and living-donor (n = 63,139) transplants in the United States Renal Data System. Using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by donor type, we estimated the association between donor–recipient sex mismatch and death-censored allograft failure with adjustment for known risk factors, with and without the use of multiple imputation methods to account for potential bias and/or loss of efficiency due to missing data.
Results
The advantage afforded by male donor kidneys was more pronounced among male than among female recipients (8% vs 2% relative risk reduction; interaction P < 0.01). This difference is of the order of magnitude of several other risk factors affecting donor selection decisions.
Conclusions
Donor–recipient sex mismatch affects renal allograft survival in a direction consistent with immune responses to sexually determined minor histocompatibility antigens. Our study provides a paradigm for clinical detection of markers for minor histocompatibility loci.