ATG induction in renal transplant recipients: Long-term hazard of severe infection is associated with long-term functional T cell impairment but not the ATG-induced CD4 cell decline

Anti‐thymocyte globulin‐mediated immunosenescent alterations of T cells in kidney transplant patients

Objectives

Kidney transplant (KT) is the most effective treatment for end‐stage renal disease. The immunosuppressant anti‐thymocyte globulin (ATG) has been applied for induction therapy to reduce the risk of acute transplant rejection for patients at high immunological risk. Despite its putative role in replicative stress during immune reconstitution, the effects of ATG on T‐cell immunosenescent changes remain to be understood.

Methods

Phenotypic and functional features of senescent T cells were examined by flow cytometry in 116 healthy controls (HC) and 95 KT patients for comparative analysis according to ATG treatment and CMV reactivation. The TCR repertoire was analysed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of KT patients.

Results

T cells of KT patients treated with ATG (ATG⁺) show typical immunosenescent features, accumulation of CD28⁻, CD85j⁺ or CD57⁺ T cells, and imbalance of functional T‐cell subsets, compared with untreated KT patients (ATG⁻). Plasma IL‐15 and CMV‐IgG levels were higher in KT patients than in HCs, and the IL‐15 level positively correlated with the frequency of CD28⁻ T cells in KT patients. ATG⁺ patients had a higher prevalence of CMV reactivation, which is associated with an increased frequency of CD28⁻ T cells. As a result, ATG⁺ patients had expanded CMV‐specific T cells and decreased TCR diversity. However, proliferation, cytokine‐producing capacity and polyfunctionality of T cells were preserved in ATG⁺ patients.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that ATG treatment contributes to the accumulation of senescent T cells, which may have lifelong clinical implications in KT patients. Thus, these patients require long‐term and comprehensive immune monitoring.

Effects of Reduced-Dose Anti-Human T-Lymphocyte Globulin on Overall and Donor-Specific T-Cell Repertoire Reconstitution in Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients

Background

Pre-sensitized kidney transplant recipients have a higher risk for rejection following kidney transplantation and therefore receive lymphodepletional induction therapy with anti-human T-lymphocyte globulin (ATLG) whereas non-sensitized patients are induced in many centers with basiliximab. The time course of lymphocyte reconstitution with regard to the overall and donor-reactive T-cell receptor (TCR) specificity remains elusive.

Methods/Design

Five kidney transplant recipients receiving a 1.5-mg/kg ATLG induction therapy over 7 days and five patients with 2 × 20 mg basiliximab induction therapy were longitudinally monitored. Peripheral mononuclear cells were sampled pre-transplant and within 1, 3, and 12 months after transplantation, and their overall and donor-reactive TCRs were determined by next-generation sequencing of the TCR beta CDR3 region. Overall TCR repertoire diversity, turnover, and donor specificity were assessed at all timepoints.

Results

We observed an increase in the donor-reactive TCR repertoire after transplantation in patients, independent of lymphocyte counts or induction therapy. Donor-reactive CD4 T-cell frequency in the ATLG group increased from 1.14% + -0.63 to 2.03% + -1.09 and from 0.93% + -0.63 to 1.82% + -1.17 in the basiliximab group in the first month. Diversity measurements of the entire T-cell repertoire and repertoire turnover showed no statistical difference between the two induction therapies. The difference in mean clonality between groups was 0.03 and 0.07 pre-transplant in the CD4 and CD8 fractions, respectively, and was not different over time (CD4: F(1.45, 11.6) = 0.64 p = 0.496; CD8: F(3, 24) = 0.60 p = 0.620). The mean difference in R20, a metric for immune dominance, between groups was -0.006 in CD4 and 0.001 in CD8 T-cells and not statistically different between the groups and subsequent timepoints (CD4: F(3, 24) = 0.85 p = 0.479; CD8: F(1.19, 9.52) = 0.79 p = 0.418).

Conclusion

Reduced-dose ATLG induction therapy led to an initial lymphodepletion followed by an increase in the percentage of donor-reactive T-cells after transplantation similar to basiliximab induction therapy. Furthermore, reduced-dose ATLG did not change the overall TCR repertoire in terms of a narrowed or skewed TCR repertoire after immune reconstitution, comparable to non-depletional induction therapy.

Kidney transplant outcomes in HIV-positive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Kidney transplantation is now a viable alternative to dialysis in HIV-positive patients who achieve good immunovirological control with the currently available antiretroviral therapy regimens. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the published evidence of outcome and risk of kidney transplantation in HIV-positive patients following the PRISMA guidelines.

Methods

Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE identified 27 cohort studies and 1670 case series evaluating the survival of HIV-positive kidney transplant patients published between July 2003 and May 2018. The regimens for induction, maintenance therapy and highly active antiretroviral therapy, acute rejection, patient and graft survival, CD4 count and infectious complications were recorded. We evaluated the patient survival and graft survival at 1 and 3 years respectively, acute rejection rate and also other infectious complications by using a random-effects analysis.

Results

At 1 year, patient survival was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95; 0.98), graft survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88; 0.94), acute rejection was 0.33 (95% CI 0.28; 0.38), and infectious complications was 0.41 (95% CI 0.34; 0.50), and at 3 years, patient survival was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90; 0.97) and graft survival was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74; 0.87).

Conclusions

With careful selection and evaluation, kidney transplantation can be performed with good outcomes in HIV-positive patients.

Live vaccines after pediatric solid organ transplant: Proceedings of a consensus meeting, 2018

Growing evidence suggests receipt of live-attenuated viral vaccines after solid organ transplant (SOT) has occurred and is safe and needed due to lapses in herd immunity. A 2-day consortium of experts in infectious diseases, transplantation, vaccinology, and immunology was held with the objective to review evidence and create expert recommendations for clinicians when considering live viral vaccines post-SOT. For consideration of VV and MMR post-transplant, evidence exists only for kidney and liver transplant recipients. For MMR vaccine post-SOT, consider vaccination during outbreak or travel to endemic risk areas. Patients who have received antiproliferative agents (eg. mycophenolate mofetil), T cell-depleting agents, or rituximab; or have persistently elevated EBV viral loads, or are in a state of functional tolerance, should be vaccinated with caution and have a more in-depth evaluation to define benefit of vaccination and net state of immune suppression prior to considering vaccination. MMR and/or VV (not combined MMRV) is considered to be safe in patients who are clinically well, are greater than 1 year after liver or kidney transplant and 2 months after acute rejection episode, can be closely monitored, and meet specific criteria of "low-level" immune suppression as defined in the document.

Next generation sequencing based assessment of the alloreactive T cell receptor repertoire in kidney transplant patients during rejection: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment in end stage renal disease but the allograft survival is still hampered by immune reactions against the allograft. This process is driven by the recognition of allogenic antigens presented to T-cells and their unique T-cell receptor (TCR) via the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), which triggers a complex immune response potentially leading to graft injury. Although the immune system and kidney transplantation have been studied extensively, the subtlety of alloreactive immune responses has impeded sensitive detection at an early stage. Next generation sequencing of the TCR enables us to monitor alloreactive T-cell populations and might thus allow the detection of early rejection events.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a prospective cohort study designed to sequentially evaluate the alloreactive T cell repertoire after kidney transplantation. The TCR repertoire of patients who developed biopsy confirmed acute T cell mediated rejection (TCMR) will be compared to patients without rejection. To track the alloreactive subsets we will perform a mixed lymphocyte reaction between kidney donor and recipient before transplantation and define the alloreactive TCR repertoire by next generation sequencing of the complementary determining region 3 (CDR3) of the T cell receptor beta chain. After initial clonotype assembly from sequencing reads, TCR repertoire diversity and clonal expansion of T cells of kidney transplant recipients in periphery and kidney biopsy will be analyzed for changes after transplantation, during, prior or after a rejection. The goal of this study is to describe changes of overall T cell repertoire diversity, clonality in kidney transplant recipients, define and track alloreactive T cells in the posttransplant course and decipher patterns of expanded alloreactive T cells in acute cellular rejection to find an alternative monitoring to invasive and delayed diagnostic procedures.

DISCUSSION

Changes of the T cell repertoire and tracking of alloreactive T cell clones after combined bone marrow and kidney transplant has proven to be of potential use to monitor the donor directed alloresponse. The dynamics of the donor specific T cells in regular kidney transplant recipients in rejection still rests elusive and can give further insights in human alloresponse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03422224 , registered February 5th 2018.

Humoral, T-cell and B-cell immune responses to seasonal influenza vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients receiving anti-T cell therapies

BACKGROUND

We analyzed the impact of the anti-T-cell agents basiliximab and antithymocyte globulins (ATG) on antibody and cell-mediated immune responses after influenza vaccination in solid-organ transplant recipients.

METHODS

71 kidney and heart transplant recipients (basiliximab [n=43] and ATG [n=28]) received the trivalent influenza vaccine. Antibody responses were measured at baseline and 6 weeks post-vaccination by hemagglutination inhibition assay; T-cell responses were measured by IFN-γ ELISpot assays and intracellular cytokine staining (ICS); and influenza-specific memory B-cell (MBC) responses were evaluated using ELISpot.

RESULTS

Median time of vaccination from transplantation was 29 months (IQR 8-73). Post-vaccination seroconversion rates were 26.8% for H1N1, 34.1% for H3N2 and 4.9% for influenza B in the basiliximab group and 35.7% for H1N1, 42.9% for H3N2 and 14.3% for influenza B in the ATG group (p=0.44, p=0.61, and p=0.21, respectively). The number of influenza-specific IFN-γ-producing cells increased significantly after vaccination (from 35 to 67.5 SFC/10(6) PBMC, p=0.0007), but no differences between treatment groups were observed (p=0.88). Median number of IgG-MBC did not increase after vaccination (H1N1, p=0.94; H3N2 p=0.34; B, p=0.79), irrespective of the type of anti-T-cell therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

After influenza vaccination, a significant increase in antibody and T-cell immune responses but not in MBC responses was observed in transplant recipients. Immune responses were not significantly different between groups that received basiliximab or ATG.

Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Modern immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation usually use a combination of two or three agents of different classes to prevent rejection and maintain graft function. Most frequently, calcineurin-inhibitors (CNI) are combined with corticosteroids and a proliferation-inhibitor, either azathioprine (AZA) or mycophenolic acid (MPA). MPA has largely replaced AZA as a first line agent in primary immunosuppression, as MPA is believed to be of stronger immunosuppressive potency than AZA. However, treatment with MPA is more costly, which calls for a comprehensive assessment of the comparative effects of the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

This review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to look at the benefits and harms of MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation. Both agents were compared regarding their efficacy for maintaining graft and patient survival, prevention of acute rejection, maintaining graft function, and their safety, including infections, malignancies and other adverse events. Furthermore, we investigated potential effect modifiers, such as transplantation era and the concomitant immunosuppressive regimen in detail.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (to 21 September 2015) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs about MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppression after kidney transplantation were included, without restriction on language or publication type.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from each study. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (94 reports) that involved 3301 participants. All studies tested mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an MPA, and 22 studies reported at least one outcome relevant for this review. Assessment of methodological quality indicated that important information on factors used to judge susceptibility for bias was infrequently and inconsistently reported.MMF treatment reduced the risk for graft loss including death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.0) and for death-censored graft loss (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99, P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference for MMF versus AZA treatment was found for all-cause mortality (16 studies, 2987 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29). The risk for any acute rejection (22 studies, 3301 participants: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73, P < 0.01), biopsy-proven acute rejection (12 studies, 2696 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.68) and antibody-treated acute rejection (15 studies, 2914 participants: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.65, P < 0.01) were reduced in MMF treated patients. Meta-regression analyses suggested that the magnitude of risk reduction of acute rejection may be dependent on the control rate (relative risk reduction (RRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.09, P = 0.08), AZA dose (RRR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01, P = 0.10) and the use of cyclosporin A micro-emulsion (RRR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65, P = 0.07). Pooled analyses failed to show a significant and meaningful difference between MMF and AZA in kidney function measures.Data on malignancies and infections were sparse, except for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. The risk for CMV viraemia/syndrome (13 studies, 2880 participants: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) was not statistically significantly different between MMF and AZA treated patients, whereas the likelihood of tissue-invasive CMV disease was greater with MMF therapy (7 studies, 1510 participants: RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.61). Adverse event profiles varied: gastrointestinal symptoms were more likely in MMF treated patients and thrombocytopenia and elevated liver enzymes were more common in AZA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MMF was superior to AZA for improvement of graft survival and prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. These benefits must be weighed against potential harms such as tissue-invasive CMV disease. However, assessment of the evidence on safety outcomes was limited due to rare events in the observation periods of the studies (e.g. malignancies) and inconsistent reporting and definitions (e.g. infections, adverse events). Thus, balancing benefits and harms of the two drugs remains a major task of the transplant physician to decide which agent the individual patient should be started on.