Lung transplantation and extracorporeal photopheresis: The answer to bronchiolitis obliterans?

Extracorporeal photopheresis as second-line treatment therapy in life-threatening primary graft dysfunction following lung transplantation

ECP is an established "second-line" treatment for CLAD/BOS. Recently, ECP was used for the first time in an adolescent CF patient as a "second-line" treatment therapy in life-threatening primary graft dysfunction following lung transplantation who deteriorated despite extensive treatment including ECMO and ATG. Within 10 days after initiation of ECP twice weekly, allograft function and clinical status improved significantly and the patient was weaned from mechanical ventilation support. ECP has been continued every 2 weeks since. Two hundred days after lung transplantation, the patient has an acceptable allograft function (FEV1 67%) and no signs of allograft rejection. We advocate that use of ECP and its immunomodulatory effects should be evaluated in the early period following lung transplantation.

Comparison of extracorporeal photopheresis and alemtuzumab for the treatment of chronic lung allograft dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Survival after lung transplantation is limited by chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Immunomodulatory therapies such as extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) and alemtuzumab (AL) have been described for refractory CLAD, but comparative outcomes are not well defined.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed spirometric values and clinical outcomes after therapy with ECP, AL, or no treatment (NT) in patients with CLAD who underwent transplant between January 2005 and December 2014. We used inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) to adjust for potential confounders affecting treatment choice.

RESULTS

Of 267 patients, 31 received immunomodulatory therapies for CLAD, and 78 received NT. The slope of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) decline significantly improved after treatment with AL and with ECP compared with pre-treatment FEV₁ slope; however, there was no significant change in slope of forced vital capacity (FVC). Comparison with NT was limited because of clinical differences in treatment groups. After IPWRA, we found no significant difference in mean difference of FEV₁ slope (ml/month) when comparing treatment with NT, suggesting stabilization of lung function in the treatment group. We found no difference between the 2 immunomodulatory therapies 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment (-49.9 [95% CI -581.8, +482.0], p = 0.85; +27.7 [95% CI -167.6, +223.0], p = 0.78; -9.6 [95% CI -167.5, +148.2], p = 0.91). We found no difference in mean FVC slope or differences between ECP and AL in infection rates or survival after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunomodulatory therapy for CLAD with ECP or AL was associated with a significant change in FEV₁ slope post-treatment compared with pre-treatment slope, with minimal effect on FVC. There was no difference between the 2 therapies in their effect on pulmonary function.