Islet transplantation outcomes in type 1 diabetes and transplantation of HLA-DQ8/DR4: results of a single-centre retrospective cohort in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In solid organ transplantation, HLA matching between donor and recipient is associated with superior outcomes. In islet transplantation, an intervention for Type 1 diabetes, HLA matching between donor and recipient is not performed as part of allocation. Susceptibility to Type 1 diabetes is associated with the presence of certain HLA types. This study was conducted to determine the impact of these susceptibility antigens on islet allograft survival. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective cohort study. This cohort of transplant recipients (n = 268) received islets from 661 donor pancreases between March 11th, 1999 and August 29th, 2018 at the University of Alberta Hospital (Edmonton, AB, Canada). The frequency of the Type 1 diabetes susceptibility HLA antigens (HLA-A24, -B39, -DQ8, -DQ2 and-DQ2-DQA1∗05) in recipients and donors were determined. Recipient and donor HLA antigens were examined in relation to time to first C-peptide negative status/graft failure or last observation point. Taking into account multiple transplants per patient, we fitted a Gaussian frailty survival analysis model with baseline hazard function stratified by transplant number, adjusted for cumulative islet dose and other confounders. Findings: Across all transplants recipients of donors positive for HLA-DQ8 had significantly better graft survival (adjusted HRs 0.33 95% CI 0.17-0.66; p = 0.002). At first transplant only, donors positive for HLA-DQ2-DQA1∗05 had inferior graft survival (adjusted HR 1.96 95% CI 1.10-3.46); p = 0.02), although this was not significant in the frailty analysis taking multiple transplants into account (adjusted HR 1.46 95% CI 0.77-2.78; p = 0.25). Other HLA antigens were not associated with graft survival after adjustment for confounders. Interpretation: Our findings suggest islet transplantation from HLA-DQ8 donors is associated with superior graft outcomes. A donor positive for HLA-DQ2-DQA1∗05 at first transplant was associated with inferior graft survival but not when taking into account multiple transplants per recipient. The relevance of HLA-antigens on organ allocation needs further evaluation and inclusion in islet transplant registries and additional observational and interventional studies to evaluate the role of HLA-DQ8 in islet graft survival are required. Funding: None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".