Operational tolerance in liver transplantation: shall we predict or promote?

Liver-inclusive intestinal transplantation results in decreased alloimmune-mediated rejection but increased infection

Background and aims

A co-transplanted liver allograft has been thought to protect other organs from rejection-mediated injury; however, detailed analyses of co-transplanted liver on intestinal allograft outcomes have not been conducted to date. The aim of the study was to compare immune-mediated injury, causes of graft failure and clinical outcomes between recipients who underwent either a liver-inclusive intestinal transplant (LITx) or liver-exclusive intestinal transplant (LETx).

Methods

Between May 2000 and May 2010, 212 adult patients undergoing LITx (n =76) and LETx (n =136) were included. LITx underwent either liver combined intestinal or full multivisceral transplantation. LETx underwent either isolated intestinal or modified multivisceral transplantation.

Results

During 44.9 ± 31.4 months of follow-up, death-censored intestinal graft survival was significantly higher for LITx than LETx (96.9%, 93.2% and 89.9% vs 91.4%, 69.3% and 60.0% at 1, 3 and 5 years; p =0.0001). Incidence of graft loss due to rejection was higher in LETx than in LITx (30.9% vs 6.6%; p <0.0001), while infection was the leading cause of graft loss due to patient death in LITx (25.0% vs 5.1%; p <0.0001). Despite similar immunosuppression, the average number (0.87 vs 1.42, p =0.02) and severity of acute cellular rejection episode (severe grade: 7.9% vs 21.3%; p =0.01) were lower in LITx than in LETx. Incidence of acute antibody-mediated rejection was also significantly lower in LITx than in LETx (3.6% vs 15.2%; p =0.03). Incidence of chronic rejection was reduced in LITx (3.9% vs 24.3%; p =0.0002).

Conclusions

Intestinal allografts with a liver component appear to decrease risk of rejection but increase risk of infection. Our findings emphasize that LITx has characteristic immunologic and clinical features. Lower immunosuppression may need to be considered for patients who undergo LITx to attenuate increased risk of infection.

Emerging Implications for Extracellular Matrix-Based Technologies in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

Despite recent progress in vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA), limitations including complex, high dose immunosuppression regimens, lifelong risk of toxicity from immunosuppressants, acute and most critically chronic graft rejection, and suboptimal nerve regeneration remain particularly challenging obstacles restricting clinical progress. When properly configured, customized, and implemented, biomaterials derived from the extracellular matrix (ECM) retain bioactive molecules and immunomodulatory properties that can promote stem cell migration, proliferation and differentiation, and constructive functional tissue remodeling. The present paper reviews the emerging implications of ECM-based technologies in VCA, including local immunomodulation, tissue repair, nerve regeneration, minimally invasive graft targeted drug delivery, stem cell transplantation, and other donor graft manipulation.

Withdrawal of immunosuppression in liver transplantation and the mechanism of tolerance

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppression reagents have side effects and cause considerable long-term morbidity and mortality in patients after liver transplantation. Sufficient evidences showed that minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression reagents does not deteriorate the recipient's immune response and physiological function and therefore, is feasible in some recipients of liver transplantation. However, the mechanisms are not clear. The present review was to update the current status of immunosuppression in liver transplantation and the mechanism of minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression in liver recipients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched articles in English on minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression in liver transplantation in PubMed. We focused on the basic mechanisms of immune tolerance in liver transplantation. Studies on immunosuppression minimization or withdrawal protocols and biomarker in tolerant recipients were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression can be achieved by the induction of immune tolerance, which may not be permanent and can be affected by various factors. However, accurately evaluating immune status post-transplant is a prerequisite to achieve individualized immunosuppression. Numerous mechanisms for immune tolerance have been found, including immunophenotypic shift of memory CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cell subsets. Activation of the inflammasome through apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a C-terminal caspase recruitment domain (ASC) in dendritic cells is associated with rejection after liver transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression can be achieved by the induction of immune tolerance via different mechanisms. This process could be affected by immunophenotypic shift of memory CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cell subsets, which may be correlated with activation of the inflammasome through ASC in dendritic cells.

Liver transplantation: Fifty years of experience

Since 1963, when the first human liver transplantation (LT) was performed by Thomas Starzl, the world has witnessed 50 years of development in surgical techniques, immunosuppression, organ allocation, donor selection, and the indications and contraindications for LT. This has led to the mainstream, well-established procedure that has saved innumerable lives worldwide. Today, there are hundreds of liver transplant centres in over 80 countries. This review aims to describe the main aspects of LT regarding the progressive changes that have occurred over the years. We herein review historical aspects since the first experimental studies and the first attempts at human transplantation. We also provide an overview of immunosuppressive agents and their potential side effects, the evolution of the indications and contraindications of LT, the evolution of survival according to different time periods, and the evolution of methods of organ allocation.