Antithymocyte Globulin Induction Therapy in Heart Transplantation: Prospective Randomized Study of High vs Standard Dosage

Retrospective Evaluation of Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin Induction in Heart Transplant Patients

The dosing intensity of antithymocyte globulin as induction therapy in heart transplantation remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rabbit antithymocyte globulin at a total dose of 4.5 mg/kg compared with <4.5 mg/kg.

Do Prior Driveline Infections Increase the Risk of Infection in Heart Transplant Patients Treated With Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin Induction Therapy?

BACKGROUND

The use of mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs) has been increasing over the past several years. Driveline infections (DLIs) are one of the most common complications seen in these patients; reportedly, up to 50% of patients with MCSDs can develop this complication. It is believed that the removal of the driveline results in treatment of the localized infection area. MCSD patients are also known to develop circulating antibodies. These circulating antibodies have been associated with poor outcomes after heart transplantation. The use of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) as induction therapy reportedly decreases the development of circulating antibodies; it is now commonly used in sensitized patients undergoing heart transplantation. It is unknown whether ATG induction therapy immediate posttransplant will increase the risk of infection of those MCSD patients with DLIs.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2013, we evaluated 57 MCSD patients who subsequently underwent heart transplantation and received ATG induction therapy. Patients were divided into those with previous MCSD DLI and those without, and they were assessed for 1-year freedom from infection (specifically, sternal wound infections). One-year survival and freedom from treated rejection, both cellular and antibody mediated, were also assessed.

RESULTS

MCSD patients with DLIs who received ATG induction did not have a lower freedom from any treated infection and from sternal wound infection posttransplant compared with those MCSD patients without DLIs and not treated with ATG induction. There were also no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of 1-year posttransplant survival and freedom from treated rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ATG induction in patients with prior DLIs did not seem to increase the risk for posttransplant infection (eg, sternal wound infection). ATG induction can therefore be safely used in this population.

A Proposal for Early Dosing Regimens in Heart Transplant Patients Receiving Thymoglobulin and Calcineurin Inhibition

There is currently no consensus regarding the dose or duration of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induction in different types of heart transplant patients, or the timing and intensity of initial calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy in rATG-treated individuals. Based on limited data and personal experience, the authors propose an approach to rATG dosing and initial CNI administration. Usually rATG is initiated immediately after exclusion of primary graft failure, although intraoperative initiation may be appropriate in specific cases. A total rATG dose of 4.5 to 7.5 mg/kg is advisable, tailored within that range according to immunologic risk and adjusted according to immune monitoring. Lower doses (eg, 3.0 mg/kg) of rATG can be used in patients at low immunological risk, or 1.5 to 2.5 mg/kg for patients with infection on mechanical circulatory support. The timing of CNI introduction is dictated by renal recovery, varying between day 3 and day 0 after heart transplantation, and the initial target exposure is influenced by immunological risk and presence of infection. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin and CNI dosing should not overlap except in high-risk cases. There is a clear need for more studies to define the optimal dosing regimens for rATG and early CNI exposure according to risk profile in heart transplantation.

Usefulness of Rabbit Anti-thymocyte Globulin in Patients With Giant Cell Myocarditis

Giant cell myocarditis (GCM) is an aggressive inflammatory myocardial disease. Immunosuppression is an effective treatment for some cases. However, the duration of action of agents such as muromonab CD3 is short and others such as the calcineurin inhibitors may lead to renal failure. Here we describe the outcome of a novel approach to treatment using rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (RATG). A retrospective analysis of 6 patients treated with RATG for GCM was performed. Diagnosis was confirmed by endomyocardial biopsy, and RATG was administered with a high dose of corticosteroids. None of the patients had cytokine release syndrome or leukopenia, and 5 had thrombocytopenia (2 of them severe). Only 1 had a serious bleeding event that occurred after implantation of mechanical circulatory support. None developed impaired renal function after the treatment. Five were successfully discharged home with an increase in global left ventricular ejection fraction of 29%. Four are currently alive without recurrent disease, 1 of them after heart transplantation, with a mean follow-up of 970 days (423 to 1,875 days), left ventricular ejection fraction of 53%, and all in current New York Heart Association Classification class ≤II. Only 1 case had GCM recurrence. There were 2 deaths: one because of intracranial bleeding after mechanical circulatory support implantation and the other caused by primary graft dysfunction. In conclusion, patients with GCM can be successfully immunosuppressed with RATG and corticosteroids, thereby avoiding renal impairment. Early thrombocytopenia is the main adverse event. Larger cohorts of patients are necessary to compare the different immunosuppressant strategies available for GCM in a randomized fashion.

New directions for rabbit antithymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin(®)) in solid organ transplants, stem cell transplants and autoimmunity

In the 30 years since the rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) Thymoglobulin^® was first licensed, its use in solid organ transplantation and hematology has expanded progressively. Although the evidence base is incomplete, specific roles for rATG in organ transplant recipients using contemporary dosing strategies are now relatively well-identified. The addition of rATG induction to a standard triple or dual regimen reduces acute cellular rejection, and possibly humoral rejection. It is an appropriate first choice in patients with moderate or high immunological risk, and may be used in low-risk patients receiving a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-sparing regimen from time of transplant, or if early steroid withdrawal is planned. Kidney transplant patients at risk of delayed graft function may also benefit from the use of rATG to facilitate delayed CNI introduction. In hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, rATG has become an important component of conventional myeloablative conditioning regimens, following demonstration of reduced acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease. More recently, a role for rATG has also been established in reduced-intensity conditioning regimens. In autoimmunity, rATG contributes to the treatment of severe aplastic anemia, and has been incorporated in autograft projects for the management of conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and systemic sclerosis. Finally, research is underway for the induction of tolerance exploiting the ability of rATG to induce immunosuppresive cells such as regulatory T-cells. Despite its long history, rATG remains a key component of the immunosuppressive armamentarium, and its complex immunological properties indicate that its use will expand to a wider range of disease conditions in the future.

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.

Kinetics of T-lymphocyte subsets and posttransplant opportunistic infections in heart and kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The potential use of T-lymphocyte measurements as infection risk markers after solid organ transplant has not been fully investigated. We analyzed the kinetics of T-lymphocyte subsets within the first 8 months posttransplant and their correlation with opportunistic infections (OIs) in solid organ transplant recipients.

METHODS

Serial measurement of CD4 and CD8 T cells was performed retrospectively in 48 heart transplant recipients (HTR) and 42 kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Generalized estimating equation models were used to analyze longitudinal data separately for HTR and KTR.

RESULTS

An initial CD4 T-cell drop (at months 1 and 2, in HTR and KTR, respectively) coincided with the peak of OIs. HTR with a low nadir CD4 T-cell count (≤ 200/μL) showed poor CD4 T-cell recovery (175 ± 277 cells/μL at baseline vs 242 ± 99 cells/μL at month 8) and their CD8 T cells increased from 153 ± 194 cells/μL at baseline to 601 ± 399 cells/μL at month 8. KTR with a low nadir CD4 T-cell count (≤ 200/μL) showed a modest CD4 T-cell recovery (138 ± 46 cells/μL at baseline vs. 440 ± 448 cells/μL at month 8), and their CD8 T cells increased from 90 ± 41 cells/μL at baseline to 450 ± 242 cells/μL at month 8. HTR developing OIs had lower CD4 (P<0.001) and CD8 T cells (P=0.001) than those without infections, whereas in KTR the risk for OIs seemed restricted to patients with low CD8 T cells. HTR with OIs had a low CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio, whereas KTR had a high CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Determination of T-lymphocyte subsets is a simple and effective parameter to identify patients at risk of developing OIs.