Outcome of Liver Transplant Patients With Preformed Donor-Specific Anti-Human Leukocyte Antigen Antibodies

Immunology demystified: A guide for transplant hepatologists

Liver transplantation has become standard practice for treating end-stage liver disease. The success of the procedure relies on effective immunosuppressive medications to control the host's immune response. Despite the liver's inherent capacity to foster tolerance, the early post-transplant period is marked by significant immune reactivity. To ensure favorable outcomes, it is imperative to identify and manage various rejection types, encompassing T-cell-mediated, antibody-mediated, and chronic rejection. However, the approach to prescribing immunosuppressants relies heavily on clinical judgment rather than evidence-based criteria. Given that the majority of patients will require lifelong immuno suppression as the mechanisms underlying operational tolerance are still being investigated, healthcare providers must possess an understanding of immune responses, rejection mechanisms, and the pathways targeted by immunosuppressive drugs. This knowledge enables customization of treatments and improved patient care, even though a consensus on an optimal immunosuppressive regimen remains elusive.

Treatment of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies-mediated rejection after liver transplantation: A French nationwide retrospective study

The deleterious effect of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) after liver transplantation (LT) has been increasingly recognized during the past decade. Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) represents a rare but severe complication in the presence of DSA. However, little is known concerning the treatment of AMR after LT. The nationwide French study aimed to describe LT recipients who received specific treatment of AMR. We performed a multicenter retrospective study on 44 patients who were treated with B-cell targeting agents from January 2008 to December 2020. Median patient age at the time of AMR treatment was 51.6 years (range: 17.9-68.0). AMR was classified as acute (n = 19) or chronic (n = 25). The diagnosis of AMR was made after a median time of 16.8 months (range: 0.4-274.2) after LT. The main therapeutic combination was plasma exchange/rituximab/IVIG (n = 25, 56.8%). The median follow-up after the treatment of AMR was 32 months (range: 1-115). After the treatment, 1-, 5- and 10-year patient and graft survivals were 77%, 55.9%, and 55.9%, and 69.5%, 47.0%, and 47.0%, respectively. Initial total bilirubin (Q1-Q3 vs. Q4) was significantly associated with patient survival (log-rank test, p = 0.005) and graft survival (log-rank test, p = 0.002). After a median follow-up of 21 months (range: 12-107), DSA became undetectable in 15/38 patients (39.5%) with available DSA monitoring. In conclusion, specific treatment of AMR in LT recipients has slowly emerged in France during the past decade and has probably been considered in the most severe patients; this explains the global poor outcome, even if the outcome was favorable in some cases.

Risk factors for antibody-mediated rejection in ABO blood-type incompatible and donor-specific antibody-positive liver transplantation

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is a refractory rejection after ABO blood-type incompatible (ABOi) or donor-specific antibody (DSA)-positive liver transplantation (LT). Pretransplant rituximab desensitization dramatically reduced posttransplant AMR development; however, risk factors for AMR in the rituximab era remain unclear in both ABOi living-donor LT (ABOi-LDLT) and preformed DSA-positive LT (pDSA-LT). Of our 596 adult LDLTs (≥18 y) after rituximab introduction (2004-2019), 136 were ABOi-LDLT (22.8%). After excluding retransplants (9), acute liver failure (7), and protocol deviations (16), 104 ABOi-LDLTs were finally enrolled. Of these, 19 recipients developed AMR, 18 of which occurred within 2 weeks after transplantation (95%). ABOi-AMR significantly worsened graft and recipient survival than those without ( p =0.02 and 0.04, respectively). Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≤13 (OR: 5.15 [1.63-16.3], p =0.005) and pre-rituximab anti-ABO IgM-titer ≥128 (OR: 3.25 [1.05-10.0], p =0.03) were identified as independent risk factors for ABOi-AMR development. Recipients fulfilling both factors showed significantly worse survival rates than those who did not ( p =0.003). Of 352 adult LTs, after introducing the LABScreen Single Ag method (2009-2019), pDSA with mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) ≥500 was detected in 50 cases (14.2%). After excluding 10 ABOi-LDLTs, 40 pDSA-LTs were finally analyzed, of which 5 developed AMR. The combination of high-titer (sum-MFI ≥10,000) and multi-loci pDSAs was a significant risk factor for pDSA-AMR development ( p <0.001); however, it did not affect the 5-year recipient survival compared with those without ( p =0.56). In conclusion, preoperative MELD ≤13 and pre-rituximab anti-ABO IgM-titer ≥128 for ABOi-LDLT, and the combination of sum-MFI ≥10,000 and multi-loci pDSAs for pDSA-LT, are risk factors for AMR in the era of rituximab desensitization. Characteristically, ABOi-AMR significantly deteriorated graft and recipient survival, whereas pDSA-AMR did not.

Clinical recommendations for posttransplant assessment of anti-HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen) donor-specific antibodies: A Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk consensus document

Although anti-HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen) donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) are commonly measured in clinical practice and their relationship with transplant outcome is well established, clinical recommendations for anti-HLA antibody assessment are sparse. Supported by a careful and critical review of the current literature performed by the Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk 2022 working group, this consensus report provides clinical practice recommendations in kidney, heart, lung, and liver transplantation based on expert assessment of quality and strength of evidence. The recommendations address 3 major clinical problems in transplantation and include guidance regarding posttransplant DSA assessment and application to diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutics: (1) the clinical implications of positive posttransplant DSA detection according to DSA status (ie, preformed or de novo), (2) the relevance of posttransplant DSA assessment for precision diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection and for treatment management, and (3) the relevance of posttransplant DSA for allograft prognosis and risk stratification. This consensus report also highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides directions for clinical investigations and trials in the future that will further refine the clinical utility of posttransplant DSA assessment, leading to improved transplant management and patient care.

Acute liver failure secondary to acute antibody mediated rejection after compatible liver transplant: A case report

BACKGROUND

The liver has traditionally been regarded as resistant to antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). AMR in liver transplants is a field in its infancy compared to kidney and lung transplants. In our case we present a patient with alpha-1-antitrypsin disease who underwent ABO compatible liver transplant complicated by acute liver failure (ALF) with evidence of antibody mediated rejection on allograft biopsy and elevated serum donor-specific antibodies (DSA). This case highlights the need for further investigations and heightened awareness for timely diagnosis.

CASE SUMMARY

A 56 year-old woman with alpha-1-antitrypsin disease underwent ABO compatible liver transplant from a deceased donor. The recipient MELD at the time of transplant was 28. The flow cytometric crossmatches were noted to be positive for T and B lymphocytes. The patient had an uneventful recovery postoperatively. Starting on postoperative day 5 the patient developed fevers, elevated liver function tests, distributive shock, renal failure, and hepatic encephalopathy. She went into ALF with evidence of antibody mediated rejection with portal inflammation, bile duct injury, endothelitis, and extensive centrizonal necrosis, and C4d staining on allograft biopsy and elevated DSA. Despite various interventions including plasmapheresis and immunomodulating therapy, she continued to deteriorate. She was relisted and successfully underwent liver retransplantation.

CONCLUSION

This very rare case highlights AMR as the cause of ALF following liver transplant requiring retransplantation.

Refractory Acute Antibody Mediated Rejection in Liver Transplant After Desensitization of Preformed Donor Specific Antibody-Validity of Bortezomib and Everolimus: A Case Report

Here, we report a case of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) complicated with severe acute antibody-mediated rejection (aAMR), although desensitization was performed for preformed donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibody (DSA). LDLT was performed in a 59-year-old woman with alcoholic cirrhosis with a graft from her 60-year-old husband as a living donor. She had reproductive history of 4 gravidity and parity with her husband. Preoperative serologic studies showed positive complement-dependent cytotoxic crossmatch and anti-human leukocyte antigen-A26 antibody was identified as DSA. Desensitization for preformed DSA with rituximab and plasma exchange was performed before LDLT. We decided to perform LDLT using her husband right liver as living donor graft since the DSA mean fluoro-intensity was down to negative range. The immunosuppressive regimen was comprised with steroid and tacrolimus. However, the recipient developed acute cellular rejection on day 5 after LDLT, followed by severe aAMR. Re-administration of rituximab followed by 4 courses of plasma exchange failed to treat aAMR. The DSA mean fluoro-intensity was successfully suppressed after bortezomib was administered however impaired serologic liver function test and cholestasis were remained. The liver function test and cholestasis in the graft were improved after Everolimus was administered. The recipient was discharged on postoperative day 196. In conclusion, we report a case of LDLT who developed aAMR after desensitization of preformed DSA and was successfully treated with intensive therapy with bortezomib and everolimus.

Antibody-mediated rejection of the liver allograft: An update and a clinico-pathological perspective

Antibody-mediated rejection after liver transplantation is an under-recognised cause of allograft injury. While definitions of acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection have increased clinical awareness, timely identification and management of antibody-mediated rejection remain difficult because of complexities in diagnosis and histopathology, lack of treatment protocols, and unclear long-term outcomes. While recent cohort studies assessing the importance of donor-specific antibodies have aided in its diagnosis, literature on the treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation remain limited to case reports and small series. Further increasing the awareness and timely recognition of antibody-mediated rejection post-liver transplantation is crucial in order to stimulate future research and the development of protocols for its diagnosis and treatment. This review will summarise recent advances in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation, as well as some of the histopathologic features (on liver biopsy tissue) of acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection.

Rituximab Desensitization in Liver Transplant Recipients With Preformed Donor-specific HLA Antibodies: A Japanese Nationwide Survey

Background.

The significance of preformed donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSAs) in liver transplant recipients is controversial. Moreover, there has been no established desensitization protocol for DSA-positive recipients.

Methods.

A Japanese nationwide survey was performed to investigate the clinical practice among preformed DSA-positive patients with special reference to rituximab desensitization.

Results.

There was a total of 47 cases, including 2 pediatric cases, in which rituximab (287 ± 159 mg [319 (50–916)/m²]) was administered to desensitize preformed DSA. The decision for the indication of rituximab desensitization was based on a single-antigen assay in the majority of cases (83%, 39/47), and the most frequent protocol was rituximab monotherapy (n = 12) followed by quadruple treatment with rituximab tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and plasmapheresis (n = 11). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y graft and patient survival rates among adult patients were 85%, 83%, 83%, and 81%, 77%, 74%, respectively, while neither graft loss nor death was observed in the 2 pediatric cases. The 1-, 3-, and 12-mo cumulative incidence of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) was 11%, 13%, and 13%, respectively. The incidence of AMR was significantly higher in the lower rituximab dose group than in the higher rituximab dose group (cutoff 300 mg/m², 4% versus 24%, P = 0.041). The rate of infusion-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 4.4%, and all ADRs were mild and self-limiting. A total of 99 ADRs among 27 patients were reported, none of which were severe adverse events associated with rituximab.

Conclusions.

The rituximab induction was well tolerated among DSA-positive liver transplant recipients with a satisfactory outcome. A rituximab dose >300 mg/m² was observed to achieve less incidence of the development of AMR.

Autoantibodies to LG3 are associated with poor long-term survival after liver retransplantation

Autoantibodies are detrimental to the survival of organ transplantation. We demonstrated that Angiotensin II Type I Receptor agonistic autoantibodies (AT1R-AA) were associated with poor outcomes after liver retransplantation. To examine the effect of other autoantibodies, we studied a retrospective cohort of 93 patients who received a second liver transplant. Pre-retransplant sera were tested with Luminex-based solid-phase assays. Among 33 tested autoantibodies, 15 were significantly higher in 48 patients who lost their regrafts than 45 patients whose regrafts were still functioning. Specifically, patients with autoantibodies to the C-terminal laminin-like globular domain of Perlecan (LG3) experienced significantly worse regraft survival (p = .002) than those with negative LG3 autoantibodies (LG3-A). In multivariate analysis, LG3-A (HR = 2.35 [1.11-4.98], p = .027) and AT1R-AA (HR = 2.09 [1.07-4.10], p = .032) remained significant predictors of regraft loss after adjusting for recipient age and sex. There were synergistic deleterious effects on regraft survival in patients who were double-positive for LG3-A and donor-specific antibody (DSA) (HR = 5.26 [2.15-12.88], p = .001), or LG3-A and AT1R-AA (HR = 3.23 [1.37-7.66], p = .008). All six double-positive patients lost their liver regrafts. In conclusion, LG3-A is associated with inferior long-term outcomes of a second liver transplant. Screening anti-HLA antibodies and autoantibodies such as LG3-A/AT1R-AA identifies patients with a higher risk for liver transplantation.

A review of imlifidase in solid organ transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Sensitization to human leukocyte antigens has long posed an obstacle to organ transplantation. With desensitization protocol refinement, new drug development, and organ allocation policy changes, access to transplant for sensitized patients has never been greater. Yet in spite of these advances the problem of donor-specific antibody remains incompletely solved, and many patients remain poorly served by the therapies that do exist. Area covered: Imlifidase is a new drug with a mechanism of action that enables it to transiently yet efficiently eliminate donor-specific antibody over a much more rapid time course than any heretofore existing therapy. This unique property suggests that imlifidase may have far-reaching potential for patients in whom donor-specific antibodies may preclude successful transplantation. Below follows a review of the clinical experience with imlifidase to date as well as a discussion of the transplant applications that eagerly await the availability of this novel agent. Expert opinion: Imlifidase is a first-in-class pharmaceutical agent that safely and efficiently cleaves IgG, and holds promise to be a game-changer for sensitized patients in need of lifesaving organ transplants.

De novo HLA Class II antibodies are associated with the development of chronic but not acute antibody-mediated rejection after liver transplantation - a retrospective study

Donor-specific antibodies (DSA) cause antibody-mediated rejection (AMR); however, their pathogenic role has not yet been adequately investigated after liver transplantation. The aim of our study was to analyse the clinical significance of DSA and complement-binding DSA for the prediction of AMR after liver transplantation. Our cohort included 120 liver recipients with assessed protocol biopsies one year post-transplant. All patients had defined HLA-specific and complement-binding (C1q + and C3d+) antibodies before and in regular intervals after transplantation. The incidence of DSA was evaluated in relation with clinical and histopathological data in the liver allografts. A higher occurrence of acute AMR was observed in recipients with preformed complement-binding DSA to HLA Class I antigens. Patients who developed chronic AMR had more frequently de novo-produced antibodies against HLA Class II antigens (P = 0.0002). A correlation was also found between de novo-formed C1q + and C3d+-binding antibodies to HLA Class II antigens and the development of chronic AMR (P = 0.043). Our study implies that preformed complement-binding DSA to HLA Class I antigens are related to increased risk of acute antibody-mediated rejection, while chronic AMR is more frequent in patients with de novo-produced antibodies to HLA Class II antigens after liver transplantation.

Combined Liver-Kidney Transplantation With Preformed Anti-human Leukocyte Antigen Donor-Specific Antibodies

Introduction

The impact of preformed donor-specific anti–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies (pDSAs) after combined liver-kidney transplantation (CLKT) is still uncertain.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study in 8 European high-volume transplant centers and investigated the outcome of 166 consecutive CLKTs, including 46 patients with pDSAs.

Results

Patient survival was lower in those with pDSAs (5-year patient survival rate of 63% and 78% with or without pDSA, respectively; P = 0.04). The presence of pDSAs with a mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) ≥ 5000 (hazard ratio 4.96; 95% confidence interval: 2.3–10.9; P < 0.001) and the presence of 3 or more pDSAs (hazard ratio 6.5; 95% confidence interval: 2.5–18.8; P = 0.05) were independently associated with death. The death-censored liver graft survival was similar in patients with or without pDSAs. Kidney graft survival was comparable in both groups. (The 1- and 5-year death-censored graft survival rates were 91.6% and 79.5%, respectively, in patients with pDSAs and 93% and 88%, respectively, in the donor-specific antibody [DSA]-negative group, P = not significant). Despite a higher rate of kidney graft rejection in patients with pDSAs (5-year kidney graft survival rate without rejection of 87% and 97% with or without pDSAs, respectively; P = 0.04), kidney function did not statistically differ between both groups at 5 years post-transplantation (estimated glomerular filtration rate 45 ± 17 vs. 57 ± 29 ml/min per 1.73 m², respectively, in patients with and without pDSAs). Five recipients with pDSAs (11.0%) experienced an antibody-mediated kidney rejection that led to graft loss in 1 patient.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that CLKT with pDSAs is associated with a lower patients’ survival despite good recipients’, liver and kidney grafts’ outcome.