Relationship Between Platelet Activation and Acute Rejection After Renal Transplantation

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain.

Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.

Evaluating platelet activation related to the degradation of biomaterials using molecular markers

The effective assessment of platelet activation is an important component of the evaluation of cardiovascular implants. Currently, most evaluation is performed based on the ISO 10993-4 international standard. However, the methods specified in this standard were originally designed for non-degradable materials, and the applicability of these methods to evaluate degradable materials has not been carefully assessed. Here, the platelet activation response was evaluated (using blood from health rabbits) for three typical degradable materials (collagen, polylactic acid, and hydroxyapatite) by measuring the widely used molecular markers CD62 P, CD63, and CD40 L and the three molecular markers PF4, β-TG, and TXB2 that are referenced in the ISO 10993-4 standard. The variations of these six markers were compared in the simulated degradation of the three test materials. The results showed differences in platelet activation with degradation that were strongly related to the surface physicochemical properties. Changes in the surface roughness and contact angle of the materials correlated with changes in the degree of platelet activation. The six tested platelet activation molecular markers show promise for assessment of platelet function in degradable medical devices, providing guidance for quality control strategies and the design and improvement of safe medical devices.

Mechanism of Nucleoside Triphosphate Diphosphohydrolase-1-Associated Imbalance in Adenosine Diphosphate Degradation, B-Cell Activation, and Related Injury During Acute Antibody-Mediated Rejection

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase-1 (NTPDase1) during acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

METHODS

NTPDase1 overexpression, NTPDase1 knockout, and wild-type nude mice skin graft models were used to induce acute AMR. NTPDase1 expression in B cells, NTPDase1 messenger RNA expression in skin grafts, extracellular adenosine diphosphate (ADP) concentration, B-cell volume and surface antigens expression, average platelet transport rate, and ultrastructure and apoptosis of skin graft cells were investigated.

RESULTS

During acute AMR in nude mice, higher NTPDase1 expression caused lower extracellular ADP concentration, smaller increase in B-cell volume, and major histocompatibility complex II surface antigen expression, suggesting a negative correlation between them; higher NTPDase1 expression also caused slower average platelet transport rate and less severe skin graft injury, suggesting a negative correlation between them. Pretreatment with high-dose exogenous NTPDase1 inhibited platelet activation and protected skin grafts, but it resulted in prolonged bleeding time (by 51.4%) and prolonged coagulation time (by 44.1%).

CONCLUSION

An NTPDase1-associated imbalance in extracellular ADP degradation may contribute to B-cell activation, platelet activation, and more severe skin graft injury in nude mice. Pretreatment with high-dose exogenous NTPDase1 effectively protected skin grafts in nude mice at 1 week, but it increased the risk of bleeding.

Platelets: versatile modifiers of innate and adaptive immune responses to transplants

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last decade there has been mounting experimental data demonstrating that platelets contribute to acute vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis. This review focuses on recent findings that link platelets to inflammatory responses of relevance to transplants.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although it has been known that platelets modify vascular inflammation by secretion of soluble mediators and release of microparticles, new aspects of these mechanisms are being defined. For example, platelet-derived CCL5 not only functions in homomers, but also forms more potent heteromers with platelet factor 4 (PF4; CXCL4). This heteromer formation can be inhibited with small molecules. New findings also demonstrate heterologous interactions of platelet microparticles with leukocytes that may increase their range of impact. By attaching to neutrophils, platelet microparticles appear to migrate out of blood vessels and into other compartments where they stimulate secretion of cytokines. Contact of platelets with extracellular matrix also can result in cleavage of hyaluronan into fragments that serve as an endogenous danger signal.

SUMMARY

Recent findings have expanded the range of interactions by which platelets can modify innate and adaptive immune responses to transplants.

A study of the imbalance in B cell-expressed nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase 1-induced ADP degradation in graft injury during acute antibody-mediated rejection

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects and mechanisms of the imbalance in B cell-expressed nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase 1 (NTPDase 1)-induced ADP degradation on graft injury during acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

METHODS

The acute AMR animal model was established in male NTPDase 1-wild-type Balb/c nude mice. The levels of NTPDase 1 in B cells and NTPDase1 mRNA in grafted skin, changes in platelet activation markers and average platelet velocities were determined by luciferin/luciferase enzymatic, real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR, flow cytometry and inverted microscope. The pathological changes in grafted skin were observed by electron microscopy. The effects of pretreatment with different doses of exogenous NTPDase 1 on platelet activation and graft injury were studied.

RESULTS

The expression of B-cell NTPDase 1 was significantly increased at 30 min after the induction of acute AMR and restored to baseline levels after 7 days. The levels of NTPDase 1 mRNA in grafted skin were decreased at 30 min after the induction of acute AMR. After the induction of acute AMR, the levels of platelet activation markers increased significantly, whereas the average platelet velocity significantly decreased. After pretreatment with exogenous NTPDase 1, the expression of platelet activation markers significantly decreased, the average velocity of platelets increased significantly, and the necrosis of grafted skin and inflammatory reaction significantly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

An imbalance in the NTPDase 1-induced degradation of extracellular ADP may be a major cause of graft injury in acute AMR. Pretreatment with exogenous NTPDase 1 may effectively inhibit platelet activation and protect grafted skin.