English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and Aims Incompatibility of dialysis procedure due to hypersensitivity against dialyzer material which currently is mainly based on polysulfone and derivatives can not be assessed by routine laboratory tests. Although the frequency of such symptoms is suspected to be low (below 2%) such resembles an important clinical problem because dialysis procedures are frequently accompanied by symptoms of non-tolerability with reasons not being entirely clear while circulatory reasons are suspected to play a major role. Method To enlighten the role of polysulfone hypersensitivity, we adapted known standardized material immune-toxicological tests (lymphocyte transformation test, basophil degranulation test) to the specific conditions of dialysis and polysulfone material sensitivity. We developed a method of polysulfone micronisation and measured humoral immune response of isolated patient´s lymphocytes when incubated with polysulfone dispersion. Results 39 samples from 103 patients with suspected polysulfone hypersensitivity showed positive results for type 1 (n=19), type 4 (n=18) or both type (n=2) reactions. There were no significant differences in the level of stimulation measured for DI, SI and lymphogenesis before and after dialysis (average delta -0.4; -0.28; - 1.74, p = 0.71; 0.34; 0.37) and with different dialyzer materials (Tab. 1). Patients with pos. type 4 results (LTT and lymphogenesis) showed highly correlated results in either LTT or lymphogenesis test (Fig. 1, R=0.87, p&amp;lt;0.0001). 8 out of 8 samples from patients with repeated test on different PS showed positive results on either PS. One patient tested positive on PS showed no hypersensitivity with another non-PS (PMMA) material. Conclusion This is the first methodological report showing plausible in-vitro results of patients samples concerning polysulfone intolerance. On the first superficial view, a “false-negative” rate of 60% looks rather disappointing, because all samples derived from patients with suspicion of PS hypersensitivity. However, due to the clinical variability of intolerance symptoms and the high prevalence of any problems after HD initiation, mainly of circulatory origin after initiating extracorporeal circuit, this rate may obviously express the true frequency of isolated PS material hypersensitivity in suspected patients. Alternative pathophysiological pathways of material sensitivity like complement activation, remain to be elucidated and incorporated into a comprehensive future testing panel. Further clinical and laboratory research is needed to define true polysulfone hypersensitivity and to enlighten the field of hypothetic subclinical material incompatibility in patients with impaired dialysis tolerability.

TO010A NEW IMMUN-TOXICOLOGICAL TEST TO DETECT POLYSULFONE HYPERSENSITIVITY IN HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS