Immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients

A heart transplant center experience with basiliximab induction strategies: A double edged sword?

BACKGROUND

The use of induction immunosuppression for heart transplantation (HT) is debated given the uncertain benefit and potential risks of infection and malignancy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center analysis of 475 consecutive HT recipients from 2003 to 2020 grouped by use of induction with basiliximab group (BG) and the no basiliximab group (NBG). Subgroup analysis by era compared pre-2016 standard-basiliximab (BX) induction and 2016-2020 with selective-BX use as part of a calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing regimen.

RESULTS

When adjusted for confounders (sex, age, PRA, eGFR), the BG was less likely to have acute cellular rejection (ACR) (OR.42, p < .001), but had more antibody mediated rejection (AMR) (OR 11.7, p < .001) and more cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (OR 3.8, p = .04). There was no difference between BG and NBG in the incidence of malignancies or infections. When stratified by era (pre-2016 vs. 2016-2020), ACR remained less common in the BG than the NBG (36% vs. 50%, p = .045) groups, while AMR remained more common (9.7 vs. 0% p = .005). There was no significant difference in conditional survival comparing pre-and post-2016 NBG (HR 2.20 (95% CI.75-6.43); however, both pre-2016 BG and post-2016 BG have significantly higher mortality (HR 2.37 [95% CI 1.02-5.50) and HR 2.69 (95% CI 1.08-6.71), p = .045 and.03, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Basiliximab reduces the incidence of ACR but increases the risk of AMR, CAV, and may be associated with increased mortality. Mechanistic studies are needed to describe a potential T-cell-escape mechanism with enhanced humoral immunity.

What's new in clinical solid organ transplantation by 2013

Innovative and exciting advances in the clinical science in solid organ transplantation continuously realize as the results of studies, clinical trials, international conferences, consensus conferences, new technologies and discoveries. This review will address to the full spectrum of news in transplantation, that verified by 2013. The key areas covered are the transplantation activity, with particular regards to the donors, the news for solid organs such as kidney, pancreas, liver, heart and lung, the news in immunosuppressive therapies, the news in the field of tolerance and some of the main complications following transplantation as infections and cancers. The period of time covered by the study starts from the international meetings held in 2012, whose results were published in 2013, up to the 2013 meetings, conferences and consensus published in the first months of 2014. In particular for every organ, the trends in numbers and survival have been reviewed as well as the most relevant problems such as organ preservation, ischemia reperfusion injuries, and rejections with particular regards to the antibody mediated rejection that involves all solid organs. The new drugs and strategies applied in organ transplantation have been divided into new way of using old drugs or strategies and drugs new not yet on the market, but on phase Ito III of clinical studies and trials.

Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction with ATG, ALG, IL-2RA, alemtuzumab, or muromonab-CD3 for lung transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 4 March 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immunosuppressive monoclonal and polyclonal T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. An inclusion criterion was that all participants must have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy within each study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted data. We derived risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and trial sequential analyses were undertaken to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included six RCTs (representing a total of 278 adult lung transplant recipients) that assessed the use of T-cell antibody induction. Evaluation of the included studies found all to be at high risk of bias.We conducted comparisons of polyclonal or monoclonal T-cell antibody induction versus no induction (3 studies, 140 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus no induction (3 studies, 125 participants); interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) versus no induction (1 study, 25 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus muromonab-CD3 (1 study, 64 participants); and polyclonal T-cell antibody versus IL-2RA (3 studies, 100 participants). Overall we found no significant differences among interventions in terms of mortality, acute rejection, adverse effects, infection, pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, or cancer.We found a significant outcome difference in one study that compared antithymocyte globulin versus muromonab-CD3 relating to adverse events (25/34 (74%) versus 12/30 (40%); RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.98). This suggested that antithymocyte globulin increased occurrence of adverse events. However, trial sequential analysis found that the required information size had not been reached, and the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries.None of the studies reported quality of life or kidney injury. Trial sequential analyses indicated that none of the meta-analyses achieved required information sizes and the cumulative Z-curves did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries, nor reached the area of futility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No clear benefits or harms associated with the use of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when different types of T-cell antibodies were compared were identified in this review. Few studies were identified that investigated use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after lung transplantation, and numbers of participants and outcomes were also limited. Assessment of the included studies found that all were at high risk of methodological bias.Further RCTs are needed to perform robust assessment of the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. Future studies should be designed and conducted according to methodologies to reduce risks of systematic error (bias) and random error (play of chance).