Drug immunosuppression therapy for adult heart transplantation. Part 2: clinical applications and results

Immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body is a risk to the success of the procedure, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary to avoid this. Clear evidence is required to identify the best, safest and most effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for heart transplant recipients. To date, there is no consensus on the use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits, harms, feasibility and tolerability of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction versus placebo, or no antibody induction, or another kind of antibody induction for heart transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November Week 1 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1946 to 2012 Week 45), ISI Web of Science (14 November 2012); we also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists in November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. Within individual trials, we required all participants to receive the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. RevMan analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risks of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). We assessed mortality, acute rejection, infection, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included 22 RCTs that investigated the use of T-cell antibody induction, with a total of 1427 heart-transplant recipients. All trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias. Five trials, with a total of 606 participants, compared any kind of T-cell antibody induction versus no antibody induction; four trials, with a total of 576 participants, compared interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction; one trial, with 30 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus no antibody induction; two trials, with a total of 159 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) induction; four trials, with a total of 185 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody induction; seven trials, with a total of 315 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus polyclonal antibody induction; and four trials, with a total of 162 participants, compared polyclonal antibody induction versus another kind, or dose of polyclonal antibodies.No significant differences were found for any of the comparisons for the outcomes of mortality, infection, CMV infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidaemia. Acute rejection occurred significantly less frequently when IL-2 RA induction was compared with no induction (93/284 (33%) versus 132/292 (45%); RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I(2) 57%) applying the fixed-effect model. No significant difference was found when the random-effects model was applied (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; I(2) 57%). In addition, acute rejection occurred more often statistically when IL-2 RA induction was compared with polyclonal antibody induction (24/90 (27%) versus 10/95 (11%); RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; I(2) 28%). For all of these differences in acute rejection, trial sequential alpha-spending boundaries were not crossed and the required information sizes were not reached when trial sequential analysis was performed, indicating that we cannot exclude random errors.We observed some occasional significant differences in adverse events in some of the comparisons, however definitions of adverse events varied between trials, and numbers of participants and events in these outcomes were too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that acute rejection might be reduced by IL-2 RA compared with no induction, and by polyclonal antibody induction compared with IL-2 RA, though trial sequential analyses cannot exclude random errors, and the significance of our observations depended on the statistical model used. Furthermore, this review does not show other clear benefits or harms associated with the use of any kind of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when one type of T-cell antibody is compared with another type of antibody. The number of trials investigating the use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation is small, and the number of participants and outcomes in these RCTs is limited. Furthermore, the included trials are at a high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for heart-transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic and random error.

Immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body is a risk to the success of the procedure, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary to avoid this. Clear evidence is required to identify the best, safest and most effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for heart transplant recipients. To date, there is no consensus on the use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits, harms, feasibility and tolerability of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction versus placebo, or no antibody induction, or another kind of antibody induction for heart transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November Week 1 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1946 to 2012 Week 45), ISI Web of Science (14 November 2012); we also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists in November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. Within individual trials, we required all participants to receive the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. RevMan analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risks of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). We assessed mortality, acute rejection, infection, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included 22 RCTs that investigated the use of T-cell antibody induction, with a total of 1427 heart-transplant recipients. All trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias. Five trials, with a total of 606 participants, compared any kind of T-cell antibody induction versus no antibody induction; four trials, with a total of 576 participants, compared interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction; one trial, with 30 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus no antibody induction; two trials, with a total of 159 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) induction; four trials, with a total of 185 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody induction; seven trials, with a total of 315 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus polyclonal antibody induction; and four trials, with a total of 162 participants, compared polyclonal antibody induction versus another kind, or dose of polyclonal antibodies.No significant differences were found for any of the comparisons for the outcomes of mortality, infection, CMV infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidaemia. Acute rejection occurred significantly less frequently when IL-2 RA induction was compared with no induction (93/284 (33%) versus 132/292 (45%); RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I(2) 57%) applying the fixed-effect model. No significant difference was found when the random-effects model was applied (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; I(2) 57%). In addition, acute rejection occurred more often statistically when IL-2 RA induction was compared with polyclonal antibody induction (24/90 (27%) versus 10/95 (11%); RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; I(2) 28%). For all of these differences in acute rejection, trial sequential alpha-spending boundaries were not crossed and the required information sizes were not reached when trial sequential analysis was performed, indicating that we cannot exclude random errors.We observed some occasional significant differences in adverse events in some of the comparisons, however definitions of adverse events varied between trials, and numbers of participants and events in these outcomes were too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that acute rejection might be reduced by IL-2 RA compared with no induction, and by polyclonal antibody induction compared with IL-2 RA, though trial sequential analyses cannot exclude random errors, and the significance of our observations depended on the statistical model used. Furthermore, this review does not show other clear benefits or harms associated with the use of any kind of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when one type of T-cell antibody is compared with another type of antibody. The number of trials investigating the use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation is small, and the number of participants and outcomes in these RCTs is limited. Furthermore, the included trials are at a high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for heart-transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic and random error.

Topical inhibition of T cell costimulatory pathways in draining lymph nodes may suppress allograft rejection

Topical immune suppression is an attractive and practical therapeutic option to prolong survival time of allografts, before the appearance of new agent with higher immunosuppressive efficacy and lower undesirable side effects. The initiation of rejection and outcome of allografts is principally mediated by alloantigen reactive T cells. The activation of T cells requires at least two signals, first is T-cell receptor signal and second is costimulatory signal. T cells that encounter antigen without the appropriate costimulatory signal become anergy or tolerance. Migration of alloantigen-bearing dendritic cells into the T-cell zone of secondary lymphoid tissues, which are essential for primary alloimmune responses, effectively induces T-cell activation and expansion with the presence of two signals. Draining lymph nodes are the promising targets for topical immune suppression, as disrupting lymphatic drainage from the transplanted graft to lymph nodes prevented rejection of skin allografts and lymphadenectomy prolong the survival time of skin and corneal allografts in experimental animals. Therefore, we hypothesize that inhibition of T cell costimulatory pathways in draining lymph nodes could impair the alloantigen-specific immune response and reduce systemic immunosuppressive drugs dose for allografts survival. Further investigations are required to identify most efficient way for draining lymph nodes transfer of costimulatory molecule gene or topical drug administration of costimulatory inhibitors to draining lymph nodes.

Strategies to modulate immune responses: a new frontier for gene therapy

The success of gene therapy strategies to cure disease relies on the control of unwanted immune responses to transgene products, genetically modified cells and/or to the vector. Effective treatment of an established immune response is much harder to achieve than prevention of a response before it has had a chance to develop. However, preventive strategies are not always effective in avoiding immune responses, thus the use of drugs to induce immunosuppression (IS) is required. The growing discovery of novel drugs provides a conceptual shift from using generalized, moderately intensive immunosuppressive regimens towards a refined approach to attain the optimal balance of naive cells, effector cells, memory cells, and regulatory cells, harnessing the natural tolerance mechanisms of the body. We review several strategies based on transient IS coupled with gene therapy for sustained immune tolerance induction to the therapeutic transgene.

Influence of Immunosuppression Regimen on Heart Transplantation Survival

OBJECTIVE

To perform an analysis comparing long-term survival in heart transplant (HT) patients depending on the immunosuppressive regimen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 317 consecutive HT patients. We excluded pediatric cases, retransplants, combined transplants (lung and kidney), and immunosuppressive regimens with fewer than 10 cases. The six groups analyzed were: (1) OKT3 7 days + cyclosporine (CsA) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) + steroids (S); (2) OKT3 7 days + CsA + azathioprine (AZA) + S; (3) OKT3 10 days + CsA + MMF + S; (4) OKT3 10 days + CsA + AZA + S; (5) interleukin-2 (IL-2) antagonists + CsA + MMF + S; and (6) IL-2 antagonists + tacrolimus + MMF + S. Probability of survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods.

RESULTS

The groups were heterogeneous regarding the number of patients and follow-up. The baseline characteristics were similar, although there were differences in surgery times. The survivals by groups at the end of the follow-up period were: group 1: 75.8%; group 2: 51.2%; group 3: 63.6%; group 4: 25.3%; group 5: 91.2%; and group 6: 84.6%. A major reduction in survival was observed in the groups that were given induction with OKT3 monoclonal antibodies (groups 1, 2, 3, and 4), particularly when AZA was combined in the maintenance phase (groups 2 and 4) and when the induction dose was high (10-day therapy in groups 3 and 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested an association between the immunosuppressive regimen and the long-term survival of HT patients. The best results were obtained with an induction regimen based on IL-2 antagonists. On the basis of the survivals observed in this study, the maintenance combination we regard as "optimal" at this time is based on a combination of CsA, MMF, and steroids.

Outcomes and Complications After Heart Transplantation

In more than 35 years of experience with heart transplantation, improvements in patient selection, surgical techniques, organ preservation, and postoperative management have increased survival rates and reduced complications. However, a number of significant complications continue, limiting the benefit of heart transplantation as the long-term solution for patients. Current survival rates are 83% at 1 year and 72% at 5 years, with 50% of patients surviving 9.4 years or more. Recipient and donor characteristics influence survival outcome. Primary graft dysfunction is the most frequent cause of death during the first 30 days. The function of the transplanted heart allows return to pre-illness activities, though denervation limits peak exercise capacity. Advances in immunosuppressive medications have decreased the incidence and severity of rejection, though only recently have shown promise in attenuating the incidence of cardiac graft vasculopathy, the major complication limiting long-term graft function. This review addresses current outcomes and the short- and long-term complications of heart transplantation.