Experience with basiliximab in pediatric liver graft recipients

Immunosuppression in the pediatric transplant recipient

The field of pediatric solid-organ transplantation has significantly evolved since its beginnings in the early 20^th century. As advancements have led to the development of innovative surgical techniques and novel medication regimens, transplantation has now become a routine practice leading to an increase in the rates of organ recipients worldwide. The care of pediatric solid-organ transplant recipients differs from adults in several areas not only due to technically challenging surgeries, but mostly due to the complexity of their immunosuppression management. Although there is large variation of pediatric immunosuppression regimens worldwide, the use of calcineurin inhibitors, either tacrolimus or cyclosporine, still forms the backbone of immunosuppression regimens after solid-organ transplantation. Both medications are relatively well tolerated but are known to have long-term side effects, especially nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity. The goal of care in long-term pediatric survivors of solid-organ transplant now aims to safely minimize exposure to immunosuppression and to achieve long-term graft tolerance.

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Efficacy and Safety of Basiliximab with a Tacrolimus-Based Regimen in Liver Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Induction with monoclonal antibodies for prevention of acute cellular rejection (ACR) may avoid many of the adverse events associated with polyclonal antibodies. Basiliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha-chain of the interleukin 2 receptor (CD25), has been extensively evaluated as an induction therapy for kidney transplant recipients, more frequently in combination with a cyclosporine-based regimen. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of basiliximab in combination with a tacrolimus-based regimen after liver transplantation.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive liver transplants (47 cadaveric donors; 3 living donors) were analyzed. All patients received two 20-mg doses of basiliximab (days 0 and 4 after transplantation) followed by tacrolimus (0.15 mg/kg/day; 10-15 ng/mL target trough levels) and a tapered dose regimen of steroids. Follow-up ranged from 404 to 1,364 days after transplantation (mean 799.89 days, SD+/-257.37; median 796 days).

RESULTS

A total of 88% of patients remained rejection-free during follow-up with an actuarial rejection-free probability of 75% within 3 months. The actuarial patient survival rate at 3 years was 88%, and the graft survival rate was 75%. Twelve (24%) patients experienced one episode of sepsis, requiring temporary reduction of immunosuppressive therapy. There were no immediate side effects associated with basiliximab and no evidence of cytomegalovirus infection or posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Basiliximab in combination with a tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen is effective in reducing episodes of ACR and increasing ACR-free survival after liver transplantation. In addition, basiliximab does not increase the incidence of adverse effects or infections.