Use of alemtuzumab and tacrolimus monotherapy for cadaveric liver transplantation: with particular reference to hepatitis C virus

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Non-Liver Solid Organ Transplantation: Incidence and Risk Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) can occur in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with previously inactive hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Previous studies have reported that HBVr is generally less than 10% in nonliver SOT recipients with past HBV infection.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study from January 2018 to August 2023 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. We examined the antiviral prophylaxis strategy used and the characteristics of HBVr in hepatitis B core antibody-positive (HBcAb +) nonliver SOT adult recipients. Past HBV infection was defined as HBcAb + / hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) -. Chronic HBV infection was defined as HBcAb + / HBsAg +.

RESULTS

A total of 180 nonliver SOT recipients were identified during the study period. Indefinite antiviral prophylaxis was utilized in 77 recipients, and none developed HBVr after transplantation. In 103 recipients without antiviral prophylaxis, the incidence of HBVr was 12% (12/97) and 33% (2/6) in those with past HBV infection and chronic HBV infection. The incidence of HBVr in patients with past HBV infection is 16% (8/50), 15% (3/20), and 5% (1/22) in kidney, heart, and lungs, respectively. HBVr was more frequent in those who received alemtuzumab. Among 14 recipients with HBVr, none had HBV-associated liver failure or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study observed a higher rate of HBVr (12%) in nonliver SOT recipients with past HBV infection compared to the previous studies. Further studies are needed to identify predictors of HBVr in nonliver SOT recipients and optimize antiviral prophylaxis guidance.

Management of long-term complications from immunosuppression

This review discusses long-term complications from immunosuppressants after liver transplantation and the management of these complications. Common complications of calcineurin inhibitors include nephrotoxicity and metabolic diseases. Nephrotoxicity can be managed by targeting a lower drug level and/or adding an immunosuppressant of a different class. Metabolic disorders can be managed by treating the underlying condition and targeting a lower drug level. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and myelosuppression are common complications of antimetabolites that are initially managed with dose reduction or discontinuation if adverse events persist. Mammalian targets of rapamycin inhibitors are associated with myelosuppression, proteinuria, impaired wound healing, and stomatitis, which may require dose reduction or discontinuation. Induction agents and agents used for steroid-refractory rejection or antibody-mediated rejection are reviewed. Other rare complications of immunosuppressants are discussed as well.

New insights in immunomodulation for intestinal transplantation

Tolerance is the Holy Grail of solid organ transplantation (SOT) and remains its primary challenge since its inception. In this topic, the seminal contributions of Thomas Starzl at Pittsburgh University outlined foundational principles of graft acceptance and tolerance, with chimerism emerging as a pivotal factor. Immunologically, intestinal transplantation (ITx) poses a unique hurdle due to the inherent characteristics and functions of the small bowel, resulting in increased immunogenicity. This necessitates heavy immunosuppression (IS) while IS drugs side effects cause significant morbidity. In addition, current IS therapies fall short of inducing clinical tolerance and their discontinuation has been proven unattainable in most cases. This underscores the unfulfilled need for immunological modulation to safely reduce IS-related burdens. To address this challenge, the Leuven Immunomodulatory Protocol (LIP), introduced in 2000, incorporates various pro-tolerogenic interventions in both the donor to the recipient, with the aim of facilitating graft acceptance and improving outcome. This review seeks to provide an overview of the current understanding of tolerance in ITx and outline recent advances in this domain.

Current Use of Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

Since the first successful liver transplant in 1967, immunosuppression has allowed liver transplantation to become the standard treatment of end-stage liver disease. Over the decades, the rates of rejection have decreased, and patient survival outcomes have significantly improved in large part due to the introduction and advancements of immunosuppression medications. However, the adverse effects associated with long-term immunosuppression have created new challenges facing liver transplantation and added significantly to posttransplantation morbidity. This review presents the data and rationale for immunosuppression approaches, addresses the main controversies related to immunosuppression in liver transplantation, and explores some of the newer advancements in immunosuppressive drug therapy.

Immunosuppressive Drugs in Liver Transplant: An Insight

Liver transplantation (LT) is the standard of care for end-stage liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the years, immunosuppression regimens have improved, resulting in enhanced graft and patient survival. At present, the side effects of immunosuppressive agents are a significant threat to post-LT quality of life and long-term outcome. The role of personalized immunosuppression is to reach a delicate balance between optimal immunosuppression and minimal side effects. Today, immunosuppression in LT is more of an art than a science. There are no validated markers for overimmunosuppression and underimmunosuppression, only a few drugs have therapeutic drug monitoring and immunosuppression regimens vary from center to center. The immunosuppressive agents are broadly classified into biological agents and pharmacological agents. Most regimens use multiple agents with different modes of action to reduce the dosage and minimize the toxicities. The calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-related toxicities are reduced by antibody induction or using mTOR inhibitor/antimetabolites as CNI sparing or CNI minimization strategies. Post-liver transplant immunosuppression has an intensive phase in the first three months when alloreactivity is high, followed by a maintenance phase when immunosuppression minimization protocols are implemented. Over time some patients achieve "tolerance," defined as the successful stopping of immunosuppression with good graft function and no indication of rejection. Cell-based therapy using immune cells with tolerogenic potential is the future and may permit complete withdrawal of immunosuppressive agents.

Induction Therapy and Therapeutic Antibodies

Prevention of allograft rejection is one of the crucial goals in solid organ transplantation to ensure durability of the graft and is chiefly mediated by cellular and humoral pathways targeting cell surface alloantigens. The risk of rejection is highest in the first post-transplant year and wanes with time albeit the risk always exists and varies with the type of organ transplanted. Induction therapies refer to the use of high-intensity immunosuppression in the immediate post-operative period to mitigate the highest risk of rejection. This term encompasses chiefly the use of antibody therapies directed against one of the key pathways in T-cell activation or abrogating effects of circulating alloantibodies. These antibodies carry more potent immunomodulatory effect than maintenance immunosuppressive therapy alone and many of them lead to durable immune cell depletion. A variety of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies have been utilized for use not only for induction therapy, but also for treatment of allograft rejection when it occurs and as components of desensitization therapy before and after transplantation to modulate circulating alloantibodies.

Induction Therapy With Antithymocyte Globulin and Delayed Calcineurin Inhibitor Initiation for Renal Protection in Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Phase II-B Trial

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) based immunosuppression in liver transplantation (LTx) is associated with acute and chronic deterioration of kidney function. Delaying CNI initiation by using induction rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) may provide kidneys with adequate time to recover from a perioperative insult reducing the risk of early post-LTx renal deterioration.

METHODS

This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing use of induction rATG with delayed CNI initiation (day-10) against upfront CNI commencement (SOC; standard of care) in those patients deemed at standard risk of postoperative renal dysfunction following LTx. The primary end point was change in (delta) creatinine from baseline to month-12.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were enrolled in each study arm. Mean Tacrolimus levels remained comparable in both groups from day-10 throughout the study period. A significant difference in delta creatinine was observed between rATG and SOC groups at 9-months (p=0.03) but not at month-12 (p=0.05). eGFR levels remained comparable between cohorts at all time points. Rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection at 1-year were similar between groups (16.3 vs 12.7%, p= 0.58). rATG showed no significant adverse effects. Survival at 12-months was comparable between groups (p= 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of induction rATG and concurrent CNI deferral in this study did not demonstrate a significant difference in delta creatinine at 1 year, these results indicate a potential role for rATG in preserving early kidney function, especially when considered with CNI deferral beyond 10 days and/or lower target Tacrolimus levels, with acceptable safety and treatment efficacy.

Update on Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

The standard therapy for decompensated end-stage chronic liver disease of any etiology and acute fulminant hepatic failure is liver transplantation (LT). Advances in immunosuppressive therapy decreased the rates of acute and chronic rejections. Thus, graft and patient survivals have significantly improved. However, long-term adverse effects of prolonged use of immunosuppressive agents such as malignancies, opportunistic infections, metabolic disorders, and other organ toxicities have now become a major concern. Consequently, alternative approaches are needed to deescalate the customary drugs and their side effects. Therapy must be individualized and additional preventive measures should be taken by patients with particular risk factors or predisposed to certain adverse effects. Current opinion favors a combination of agents with different mechanism of actions and toxicity profiles. Corticosteroids are employed in immediate and early postoperative period. Although they have a pronounced side effect profile, calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are still the backbone of early and late phase immunosuppressive regimens because of their proved efficacy. Antimetabolites are frequent choices for steroid and/or CNI-sparing strategies. Studies also have established a role for mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in specific groups of recipients. Biologic agents are a hot topic of interest and made their way into current strategies for induction. Agents extrapolated from other transplantation or immunologic experience are being evaluated.

Tolerance in clinical liver transplantation

While advances in immunosuppressive therapy have lowered the rate of acute rejection following liver transplantation, the consequence has been an increase in morbidity and mortality related to the lifelong need for maintenance immunosuppression. These complications include an increased risk of malignancy, infection, metabolic disorders, and chronic kidney disease, as well as high health care costs associated with these therapies and the required drug monitoring. Given these issues, most clinicians attempt trial and error dose minimization with variable success rates, and there has been significant interest in full drug withdrawal in select patients through research protocols. These strategies would be more successful if immunomodulatory therapies early after transplantation could be developed and if immune activation biomarkers guiding drug tapering were available to personalize these approaches. This review will review the mechanisms of liver transplant tolerance and potential strategies to achieve immunosuppression withdrawal.

A pilot study of operational tolerance with a regulatory T-cell-based cell therapy in living donor liver transplantation

Potent immunosuppressive drugs have significantly improved early patient survival after liver transplantation (LT). However, long-term results remain unsatisfactory because of adverse events that are largely associated with lifelong immunosuppression. To solve this problem, different strategies have been undertaken to induce operational tolerance, for example, maintenance of normal graft function and histology without immunosuppressive therapy, but have achieved limited success. In this pilot study, we aimed to induce tolerance using a novel regulatory T-cell-based cell therapy in living donor LT. Adoptive transfer of an ex vivo-generated regulatory T-cell-enriched cell product was conducted in 10 consecutive adult patients early post-LT. Cells were generated using a 2-week coculture of recipient lymphocytes with irradiated donor cells in the presence of anti-CD80/86 monoclonal antibodies. Immunosuppressive agents were tapered from 6 months, reduced every 3 months, and completely discontinued by 18 months. After the culture, the generated cells displayed cell-number-dependent donor-specific inhibition in the mixed lymphocyte reaction. Infusion of these cells caused no significant adverse events. Currently, all patients are well with normal graft function and histology. Seven patients have completed successful weaning and cessation of immunosuppressive agents. At present, they have been drug free for 16-33 months; 4 patients have been drug free for more than 24 months. The other 3 recipients with autoimmune liver diseases developed mild rejection during weaning and then resumed conventional low-dose immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A cell therapy using an ex vivo-generated regulatory T-cell-enriched cell product is safe and effective for drug minimization and operational tolerance induction in living donor liver recipients with nonimmunological liver diseases. (Hepatology 2016;64:632-643).

Bone marrow engraftment and associated dermatologic sequelae in a three-yr-old after liver transplantation

We present a case of a three-yr-old child with a history of multisystem Langerhans cell histiocytosis treated with systemic chemotherapy, who developed progressive liver failure and received an orthotopic split liver transplant while continuing on chemotherapy. One month following transplant, he developed acute graft-vs.-host disease of the skin and gastrointestinal tract. Peripheral blood chimerism studies post-transplant demonstrated an increasing predominance of donor lymphocytes and granulocytes. Shortly after, the patient developed vitiligo, and two yr after transplantation, the patient developed skin manifestations of psoriasis. We discuss and review the current literature, which demonstrates that chimerism following liver transplantation is rare and in our patient may be related to his profound immunosuppression around the time of liver transplant as well the development of acute graft-versus-host disease. While autoimmune disease can occur after solid organ and stem cell transplant, our patient developed skin manifestations of autoimmunity after liver transplantation, which is also rarely described.

Post-liver transplant hepatitis C virus recurrence: an unresolved thorny problem

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis represents the leading cause of liver transplantation in developed, Western and Eastern countries. Unfortunately, liver transplantation does not cure recipient HCV infection: reinfection universally occurs and disease progression is faster after liver transplant. In this review we focus on what happens throughout the peri-transplant phase and in the first 6-12 mo after transplantation: during this crucial period a completely new balance between HCV, liver graft, the recipient's immune response and anti-rejection therapy is achieved that will deeply affect subsequent outcomes. Nearly all patients show an early graft reinfection, with HCV viremia reaching and exceeding pre-transplant levels; in this setting, histological assessment is essential to differentiate recurrent hepatitis C from acute or chronic rejection; however, differentiating the two patterns remains difficult. The host immune response (mainly cellular mediated) appears to be crucial both in the control of HCV infection and in the genesis of rejection, and it is also strongly influenced by immunosuppressive treatment. At present no clear immunosuppressive strategy could be strongly recommended in HCV-positive recipients to prevent HCV recurrence, even immunotherapy appears to be ineffective. Nonetheless it seems reasonable that episodes of rejection and over-immunosuppression are more likely to enhance the risk of HCV recurrence through immunological mechanisms. Both complete prevention of rejection and optimization of immunosuppression should represent the main goals towards reducing the rate of graft HCV reinfection. In conclusion, post-transplant HCV recurrence remains an unresolved, thorny problem because many factors remain obscure and need to be better determined.

Improving long-term outcomes after liver transplantation

Long-term survival following liver transplantation is profoundly affected by conditions unrelated to graft function. Many causes of mortality are contributed to by the metabolic syndrome. The approach to metabolic syndrome in liver transplant recipients requires consideration of transplant-specific factors, particularly immunosuppression. Enhancing long-term outcomes for liver transplant recipients necessitates minimizing the amount of immunosuppression required to prevent rejection. Studies to determine the optimal approach to minimize the impact of metabolic syndrome and complications of immunosuppression in transplant recipients are needed.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody 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 antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody 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) until September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan analysis 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 the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Characterization, prophylaxis, and treatment of infectious complications in craniomaxillofacial and upper extremity allotransplantation: a multicenter perspective

BACKGROUND

Vascularized composite allotransplants consist of heterogeneous tissues from different germ layers, which include skin, muscle, bone, fat, nerves, and lymph nodes. The antigenic diversity of these tissues, particularly of the highly immunogenic skin component, necessitates potent immunosuppressive regimens similar to that of some solid organ transplants. Indeed, the lifelong, high-dose, multidrug immunosuppressive protocols expose vascularized composite allotransplant recipients to considerable risk of infectious, metabolic, and neoplastic sequelae. In this article, the authors review the infectious risk to patients after vascularized composite allotransplantation, with special attention to the somewhat limited experience with the prophylaxis and treatment of infections after this innovative reconstructive surgery.

METHODS

A review of the literature was undertaken to elucidate the characterization, prophylaxis, and treatment of all documented infectious complications.

RESULTS

Infections in face and hand vascularized composite allotransplants follow a course similar to that of solid organ transplants. Several differences exist, including the unique flora of craniomaxillofacial transplants, the increased risk of donor-derived infections, and the alteration of the risk-to-benefit ratio for cytomegalovirus infections.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient with a face or limb transplant has many of the same infectious risks as a lung transplant recipient, which include bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Because of the anatomy, mucosal exposure, and differing donor flora, however, the face or limb transplant is susceptible to invasive diseases from a variety of microbes.

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.

Minimization of immunosuppression in adult liver transplantation: new strategies and tools

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe most relevant data regarding strategies to achieve immunosuppression minimization and/or complete withdrawal in liver transplantation and to discuss the development of tolerance biomarkers to predict the success of immunosuppression weaning.

RECENT FINDINGS

In clinical organ transplantation allograft tolerance has been attained through two different pathways: (1) tolerance or immunosuppression minimization has been attempted by administering induction therapies with or without infusion of donor hematopoietic cells; and (2) the availability of spontaneously tolerant liver and kidney recipients has been exploited to develop biomarkers of allograft tolerance. The use of transcriptional profiling is the most promising approach. Recent publications have identified a gene expression signature in tolerant patients.

SUMMARY

Current immunosuppressive regimens reduce acute rejection episodes but promote a number of complications that have a negative impact on patient morbidity, mortality and quality of life. In this setting, achievement of tolerance is a major goal. Although there are no reliable markers to identify tolerant patients, recent studies have found that tolerant liver recipients exhibit unique peripheral blood transcriptional patterns. The difference in expression patterns is related to the immune response and could constitute the basis of a future diagnostic test of tolerance.

Assessment of chronic rejection in liver graft recipients receiving immunosuppression with low-dose calcineurin inhibitors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Calcineurin inhibitors represent the cornerstone immunosuppressants after liver transplantation despite their side effects. As liver graft is particularly well tolerated, low doses may be proposed. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of chronic rejection in patients with low calcineurin inhibitors regimen and to compare their characteristics with patients under standard doses.

METHODS

All patients with liver transplantation between 1997 and 2004 were divided into two groups. Low-dose patients (n=57) had tacrolimus baseline levels <5ng/ml or cyclosporine levels <50ng/ml at t0 or <100ng/ml at t+2h and were prospectively proposed a liver biopsy, searching for chronic rejection according to Banff criteria. The remaining patients constituted the standard-doses group (n=40).

RESULTS

Among the low-dose group, 36 patients in the low-dose group were assessed by biopsy. No chronic rejection was found. Fifty-six percent had only calcineurin inhibitors and 8% received other immunosuppressants only. The median time between liver transplantation and biopsy was 90 months (64-157) and between IS regimen decrease and biopsy was 41 months (11-115). Liver tests were normal in 72% of the patients. Low-dose patients had more often hepatitis B (p=0.045), less past acute rejection episodes (p=0.028), and better renal function (p=0.040). Decrease of calcineurin inhibitors failed in 15% of standard-dose patients without impacting the graft function. In the low-dose group, co-prescription of other immunosuppressants facilitated the decrease (p=0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

The minimization, or even cessation, of calcineurin inhibitors may be an achievable goal in the long term for most of the liver graft recipients.

Immunosuppression minimization vs. complete drug withdrawal in liver transplantation

Despite the increase in long-term survival, liver transplant recipients still exhibit higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. This is in part attributed to the lifelong administration of immunosuppression and its associated side effects. Several studies reported in the last decades have evaluated the impact of immunosuppression minimization in liver transplant recipients, but results have been inconsistent due to the heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient sample sizes. On the other hand, complete immunosuppression withdrawal has proven to be feasible in approximately 20% of carefully selected liver transplant recipients, especially in older patients and those with longer duration after transplantation. The long-term risks and clinical benefits of this strategy, however, also need to be clarified. As a consequence, and despite the general perception that a large proportion of liver recipients are over-immunosuppressed, it is currently not possible to derive evidence-based guidelines on how to manage long-term immunosuppression to improve clinical outcomes. Large clinical trials of drug minimization and/or withdrawal focused on clinically-relevant long-term outcomes are required. Development of personalized medicine tools and a deeper understanding of the pathogenesis of idiopathic inflammatory graft lesions will be pre-requisites to achieve these goals.

Alemtuzumab

Alemtuzumab (Campath®, MabCampath®, Genzyme) is an IgG1k anti-CD52 humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that was first licensed in March 2001 by FDA. EMEA granted its approval in July 2001 and Health Canada in November 2005. The initial indication was limited to B-CLL previously treated and resistant to alkylating agents. Starting from 2007, alemtuzumab was approved also as first-line therapy of B-CLL. So far, it has been experienced in over 60 countries.

Lymphodepletional strategies in transplantation

Because lymphocytes were shown to mediate transplant rejection, their depletion has been studied as a mechanism of preventing rejection and perhaps inducing immunologic tolerance. Agents that profoundly deplete lymphocytes have included monoclonal antibodies, cytotoxic drugs, and radiation. We have studied several such agents but focused on antibodies that deplete not only peripheral blood lymphocytes, but also lymph node lymphocytes. Depletion of lymph node T lymphocytes appears to permit peripheral tolerance at least for T cells in animal models. Nevertheless, B-cell responses may be resistant to such approaches, and T memory cells are likewise relatively resistant to depleting antibodies. We review the experimental and clinical approaches to depletion strategies and outline some of the pitfalls of depletion, such as limitations of currently available agents, duration of tolerance, infection, and malignancy. It is notable that most tolerogenic strategies that have been attempted experimentally and clinically include depleting agents even when they are not named as the underlying strategy. Thus, there is an implicitly acknowledged role for reducing the precursor frequency of donor antigen-specific lymphocytes when approaching the daunting goal of transplant tolerance.

Induction immunosuppression in liver transplantation: a review

Antibody therapy for induction is seldom used in liver transplantation in the United States, but continues to be used in approximately 10% of patients. The most commonly used antibody at the current time is basiliximab (Simulect, Novartis) and is used in adults with renal dysfunction at the time of liver transplantation with the intention of delaying introduction of calcineurin-inhibitors. In children, the same antibody is commonly used in order to reduce rates of acute rejection. Most patients, adult and pediatric, are treated with initially higher levels of tacrolimus rather than antibody induction.

Immunomodulating options for liver transplant patients

Much has changed since the early years of liver transplantation. Improvements in post-transplant survival are largely due to more selective and less toxic immunosuppression regimens and advances in operative and perioperative care. This has allowed liver transplantation to become an extremely successful treatment option for patients with endstage liver disease. Beginning with cyclosporine, a cyclic endecapeptide of fungal origin and the first of the calcineurin inhibitors to find widespread use, immunosuppressive regimens have evolved to include additional calcineurin inhibitors, steroids, mTOR inhibitors, antimetabolites and antibodies, mostly targeting T-cell activation. This review will present currently available immunosuppressive agents used in the perioperative period of liver transplantation, as well as maintenance treatments, tailoring therapeutic strategies for specific populations, and advances in immune monitoring and tolerance.

Clinical operational tolerance in liver transplantation: state-of-the-art perspective and future prospects

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the definite treatment for end-stage liver diseases with satisfactory results. However, untoward effects of life-long immunosuppression prevent the development of alternative strategies to achieve better long-term outcome. Achieving clinical operational tolerance is the ultimate goal.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed and Google Scholar search using terms: "immune tolerance", "liver transplantation", "clinical trial", "operational tolerance" and "immunosuppression withdrawal" was performed, and relevant articles published in English in the past decade were reviewed. Full-text publications relevant to the field were selected and relevant articles from reference lists were also included. Priority was given to those articles which are relevant to the review.

RESULTS

Because of the inherent tolerogenic property, around 20%-30% of liver transplantation recipients develop spontaneous operational tolerance after immunosuppression withdrawal, and the percentage may be even higher in pediatric living donor liver transplantation recipients. Several natural killer and gammadeltaT cell related markers have been identified to be associated with the tolerant state in liver transplantation patients. Despite the progress, clinical operational tolerance is still rare in liver transplantation. Reprogramming the recipient immune system by creating chimerism and regulatory cell therapies is among newer promising means to achieve clinical liver transplantation tolerance in the future.

CONCLUSION

Although clinical operational tolerance is still rare in liver transplantation recipients, ongoing basic research and collaborative clinical trials may help to decipher the mystery of transplantation tolerance and extend the potential benefits of drug withdrawal to an increasing number of patients in a more predictable fashion.

Prevention of hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: An update

Hepatitis C related liver failure and hepatocarcinoma are the most common indications for liver transplantation in Western countries. Recurrent hepatitis C infection of the allograft is universal and immediate following liver transplantation, being associated with accelerated progression to cirrhosis, graft loss and death. Graft and patient survival is reduced in liver transplant recipients with recurrent Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection compared to HCV-negative recipients. Many variables may impact on recurrent HCV liver disease. Overall, excess immunosuppression is believed to be a key factor; however, no immunosuppressive regimen has been identified to be more beneficial or less harmful. Donor age limitations, exclusion of moderately to severely steatotic livers and minimization of ischemic times could be a potential strategy to minimize the severity of HCV disease in transplanted subjects. After transplantation, antiviral therapy based on pegylated IFN alpha with or without ribavirin is associated with far less results than that reported for immunocompetent HCV-infected patients. New findings in the field of immunotherapy and genomic medicine applied to this context are promising.

Review article: use of induction therapy in liver transplantation

Induction therapy is used relatively infrequently in liver transplantation, but developments in induction regimens and strategies for their use are prompting a re-examination of its benefits. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induces protracted, dose-dependent lymphocytopenia with preferential reconstitution of regulatory T-lymphocytes. Non-depleting interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) act selectively on activated T-lymphocytes with a shorter duration of effect. IL-2RA induction with delayed and reduced calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) exposure appears to preserve efficacy, while more aggressive CNI minimisation has been attempted successfully using rATG. Steroid-free tacrolimus monotherapy with rATG or IL-2RA induction is effective if adequate tacrolimus exposure is maintained. Early concerns that addition of induction to a conventional maintenance regimen could lead to accelerated progression of hepatitis C disease, or to an increased risk of hepatocellular cancer recurrence, now appear unfounded using modern regimens. Similarly, with routine use of systemic prophylaxis, recent prospective and retrospective data have not shown a higher rate of infections overall, or cytomegalovirus infection specifically, using rATG or IL-2RA induction. Historical evidence that lymphocyte-depleting agents increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma has not been confirmed for rATG. Wider use of induction in liver transplantation is now merited, using individualized strategies to support reduced CNI exposure or steroid-free immunosuppression.

Outcomes of liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus coinfection

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a controversial indication for liver transplantation (LT) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients because of reportedly poor outcomes. This prospective, multicenter US cohort study compared patient and graft survival for 89 HCV/HIV-coinfected patients and 2 control groups: 235 HCV-monoinfected LT controls and all US transplant recipients who were 65 years old or older. The 3-year patient and graft survival rates were 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 47%-71%] and 53% (95% CI = 40%-64%) for the HCV/HIV patients and 79% (95% CI = 72%-84%) and 74% (95% CI = 66%-79%) for the HCV-infected recipients (P < 0.001 for both), and HIV infection was the only factor significantly associated with reduced patient and graft survival. Among the HCV/HIV patients, older donor age [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.3 per decade], combined kidney-liver transplantation (HR = 3.8), an anti-HCV-positive donor (HR = 2.5), and a body mass index < 21 kg/m(2) (HR = 3.2) were independent predictors of graft loss. For the patients without the last 3 factors, the patient and graft survival rates were similar to those for US LT recipients. The 3-year incidence of treated acute rejection was 1.6-fold higher for the HCV/HIV patients versus the HCV patients (39% versus 24%, log rank P = 0.02), but the cumulative rates of severe HCV disease at 3 years were not significantly different (29% versus 23%, P = 0.21). In conclusion, patient and graft survival rates are lower for HCV/HIV-coinfected LT patients versus HCV-monoinfected LT patients. Importantly, the rates of treated acute rejection (but not the rates of HCV disease severity) are significantly higher for HCV/HIV-coinfected recipients versus HCV-infected recipients. Our results indicate that HCV per se is not a contraindication to LT in HIV patients, but recipient and donor selection and the management of acute rejection strongly influence outcomes.

Immunosuppression and HCV recurrence after liver transplantation

HCV related liver disease is the most common indication for liver transplantation. Recurrence of HCV infection is universal and has a substantial impact on patient and graft survival. Immunosuppression is a major factor responsible for the accelerated recurrence and compressed natural history of recurrent HCV infection. Accumulating experience has provided data to support certain strategies for immunosuppressive regimens. From the available evidence, more severe recurrence results from repeated bolus corticosteroid therapy and anti-lymphocyte antibodies used to treat rejection. Low dose and slow tapering of steroids are better than high dose maintenance and/or rapid tapering. Recent meta-analyses favour steroid-free regimens but these are complicated to interpret as the absence of steroids may simply represent less immunopotency. There is no difference in HCV recurrence between tacrolimus and cyclosporine regimens, but tacrolimus increases graft and patient survival in HCV transplanted patients. There may be a beneficial effect of maintenance azathioprine given for 6 months or longer. There is no conclusive evidence for benefit of mycophenolate and interleukin-2 receptor blockers. Few data are available for mTOR inhibitors. Better evidence is needed to establish the optimal immunosuppressive regimen for HCV recipients and more randomized trials should be performed.

Steroid elimination within 24 hours after orthotopic liver transplantation: effectiveness and tolerability

BACKGROUND

Steroids have been the mainstay of immunosuppressive regimen in liver transplantation. However, the use of steroids is associated with various post-transplant complications. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of reduced immunosuppressive regimen with steroids (steroid elimination within 24 hours post-transplant) in a cohort of Chinese liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients in line with the selection criteria were enrolled in this prospective study. All patients received anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction and tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy. The recipients were divided into two groups according to the duration of steroid use: 40 transplant in a 3-month withdrawal group and the remaining 36 in a 24-hour elimination group. Recipient survival, post-operative infections, biopsy-proven acute rejection and steroid-resistant acute rejection, non-healing wound, recurrence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), de novo diabetes, hyperlipidemia and hypertension were assessed in the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient survival, incidence of acute rejection episodes and hyperlipidemia, and recurrence of HBV and HCC between the two groups. However, the incidence rates of post-transplant infection, non-healing wound, de novo diabetes and hypertension were significantly lower in the 24-hour elimination group than in the 3-month withdrawal group (all P values <0.05).

CONCLUSION

Under anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction and tacrolimus-based maintainance, steroid elimination within 24 hours post-transplant is associated with reduced steroid-related complications without increasing the risk of rejection.

Current landscape for T-cell targeting in autoimmunity and transplantation

In recent years, substantial advances in T-cell immunosuppressive strategies and their translation to routine clinical practice have revolutionized management and outcomes in autoimmune disease and solid organ transplantation. More than 80 diseases have been considered to have an autoimmune etiology, such that autoimmune-associated morbidity and mortality rank as third highest in developed countries, after cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Solid organ transplantation has become the therapy of choice for many end-stage organ diseases. Short-term outcomes such as patient and allograft survival at 1 year, acute rejection rates, as well as time course of disease progression and symptom control have steadily improved. However, despite the use of newer immunosuppressive drug combinations, improvements in long-term allograft survival and complete resolution of autoimmunity remain elusive. In addition, the chronic use of nonspecifically targeted immunosuppressive drugs is associated with significant adverse effects and increased morbidity and mortality. In this article, we discuss the current clinical tools for immune suppression and attempts to induce long-term T-cell tolerance induction as well as much-needed future approaches to produce more short-acting, antigen-specific agents, which may optimize outcomes in the clinic.

Tolerance in liver transplantation

Operational tolerance (OT) in liver transplant patients occurs much more frequently than OT of other transplanted organs; however the rate of OT varies considerably with the centre and patient population. Rates of OT range from 15% of the total liver transplant (LTX) patient population down to less than 5%. This review examines the reports of liver OT and compares the factors that could contribute to this variation. Multiple factors were examined, including the time from transplantation when weaning of immunosuppression (IS) was commenced, the rapidity of weaning, the contribution of maintenance and induction IS and the patient population transplanted. The approaches that might be used to increase the likelihood of OT are discussed and the approaches to monitoring OT in LTX patients are reviewed.

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompensation. The use of poor quality organs, particularly from older donors, has a highly negative impact on the severity of recurrence and patient/graft survival. Although immunosuppressive regimens have a considerable impact on the outcome, the optimal regimen after liver transplantation for HCV-infected patients remains unclear. Disease progression monitoring with protocol biopsy and new noninvasive methods is essential for predicting patient/graft outcome and starting antiviral treatment with the appropriate timing. Antiviral treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. Living-donor liver transplantation is now widely accepted as an established treatment for HCV cirrhosis and the results are equivalent to those of deceased donor liver transplantation.

Management of viral infections in solid organ transplant recipients

Management of viral infections after transplantation involves antiviral drug therapy (if available) and reduction in immunosuppression, which allows for development of pathogen-specific immunity to the offending virus. Prevention of viral infections is of the utmost importance, and this may be accomplished through vaccination, antiviral strategies and infection control measures. This article discusses the current management of selected viral pathogens that cause clinical illness in solid organ transplant recipients. The benefits and toxicities of antiviral therapies are discussed in the context of prevention and treatment of various viral diseases. The emerging issue of antiviral resistance is emphasized for cytomegalovirus, recurrent hepatitis B and influenza, while the importance of immunominimization is discussed in the management of BK nephropathy and virus-associated malignancies.

Some observations on prope tolerance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To outline the rationale of powerful depleting induction therapy with alemtuzumab and minimal maintenance immunosuppression after organ transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The original observations in principle have been confirmed by many independent centres.

SUMMARY

Follow-up of the 'prope tolerance' protocol has confirmed a low incidence of rejection, infection and post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). Especially, encouraging results were obtained in African-Americans. There were few side effects and the regimen was well tolerated by patients. Treg cells were observed in the circulation, which could be an important factor in the mechanisms of graft acceptance using a prope tolerance regimen. There was a considerable reduction in the costs of the transplantation procedure. It is suggested that this minimalisation of maintenance immunosuppression is the best therapy currently available that we can offer to our patients.

Present state of immunosuppressive therapy in liver transplant recipients

1. Our increasing understanding of the signaling pathways and cellular interactions in transplant immunobiology has facilitated targeted strategies using novel immunosuppressive agents. 2. The pattern of immunosuppressive drug use in the United States continues to change, and the changes include the use of antibody induction therapy and the agents used in maintenance therapy. 3. The driving forces behind the development of new immunosuppressive regimens are the long-term complications of current immunosuppressive regimens (particularly renal dysfunction and metabolic disturbances).

Hot-topic debate on tolerance: immunosuppression withdrawal

1. Liver allografts exhibit intrinsic tolerogenic properties that result in their spontaneous acceptance in many experimental animal models. 2. In clinical transplantation, liver allografts require milder immunosuppression regimens than other organs, are relatively resistant to antibody-mediated rejection, and only very rarely are lost because of immunological insults. 3. A fraction of stable liver transplant recipients can withdraw from all immunosuppression therapy and then maintain normal graft function and not experience rejection. This phenomenon is known as spontaneous operational tolerance (SOT). 4. The intentional discontinuation of immunosuppression in stable liver transplant recipients has led to successful weaning in almost 20% of recipients, but the true prevalence of SOT in unselected recipients is still unknown. 5. The prevalence could be higher in pediatric recipients undergoing transplantation before 1 year of age and in adult recipients with more than 10 years of posttransplant follow-up. 6. Rejection occurring during medically supervised immunosuppression weaning trials tends to be mild and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, can be easily resolved without the administration of high-dose immunosuppression. 7. Tolerant liver recipients exhibit specific transcriptional patterns in peripheral blood and liver tissue that may constitute future diagnostic markers of tolerance. 8. There is still no formal proof that the discontinuation of low-dose immunosuppression in long-term survivors of liver transplantation improves the morbidity and mortality rates associated with immunosuppression therapy.

Recurrent hepatitis C and acute allograft rejection: clinicopathologic features with emphasis on the differential diagnosis between these entities

Chronic hepatitis C virus infection is the leading etiology for liver transplantation in the United States. Recurrent hepatitis C occurs nearly universally in these patients and represents a serious posttransplantation complication. Despite the detailed characterization of the histologic features of both recurrent hepatitis C and acute cellular rejection (ACR) over the last decades, the pathologic distinction between these 2 conditions remains one of the greatest diagnostic challenges in liver pathology. An accurate diagnosis, nevertheless, plays an essential role in patient management, as different therapeutic strategies are used for these conditions. In this review, the clinicopathologic features of posttransplantation recurrent hepatitis C and ACR are discussed, with emphasis on distinguishing histopathologic features, morphologic variants, ancillary techniques, and diagnostic pitfalls.

Approaching the promise of operational tolerance in clinical transplantation

Long-term acceptance of transplanted organs without requirement for indefinite immunosuppression remains the ultimate goal of transplant clinicians and scientists. This clinical state of allograft acceptance termed "operational tolerance" has been elusive in routine practice. However, there are published reports of recipients where immunosuppression has been discontinued, by intention or patient noncompliance, in which the outcome is a nondestructive immune response and normal function. The question now arises how clinical operational tolerance might be achieved in the majority of recipients. This review provides an overview of current approaches to achieve operational tolerance, including the use of donor bone marrow and depletion of recipient T cells and the resistance of liver transplants to rejection. It also describes the key role of clinical immune monitoring and future approaches to tolerance induction including inhibition of T-cell signaling, manipulation of costimulatory pathways, and expansion of regulatory T cells. The principles of these experimental approaches may ultimately be extended to provide safe and effective control of transplant rejection and induction of clinical operational tolerance.

Five-year outcomes with alemtuzumab induction after lung transplantation

BACKGROUND

Induction therapy with alemtuzumab, followed by lower than conventional intensity post-transplant immunosuppression (eg, tacrolimus monotherapy), has been associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in abdominal and heart transplantation. We examined 5-year outcomes in lung recipients receiving alemtuzumab in conjunction with reduced-intensity post-transplant immunosuppression (early lower-dose tacrolimus; lower-dose steroids, with or without mycophenolate mofetil), compared with lung recipients receiving other induction agents or no induction in association with post-transplant immunosuppression.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using prospectively collected data from a single-site clinical database of 336 lung recipients (aged ≥ 18) who received allografts between 1998 and 2005, classified by induction type: alemtuzumab, 127; Thymoglobulin, 43; daclizumab, 73; and none, 93. Survival analyses examined patient and graft survival, and freedom from acute cellular rejection (ACR), lymphocytic bronchiolitis, obliterative bronchiolitis (OB), bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

RESULTS

Five-year patient and graft survival differed by group (p = 0.046, p = 0.038, respectively). Alemtuzumab patient/graft survival rates were 59%/59%. Survival rates were 60%/44% for Thymoglobulin, 47%/46% for no induction, and 44%/41% for daclizumab. Freedom from ACR, lymphocytic bronchiolitis, OB, and BOS differed by group (all values, p < 0.008); alemtuzumab recipients showed greater 5-year freedom from each outcome (30%/82%/86%/54%) than Thymoglobulin (20%/54%/62%/27%), daclizumab (19%/55%/70%/43%), and no-induction groups (18%/70%/69%/46%). The groups did not differ in PTLD rates (≥ 94% free of PTLD at 5 years; p = 0.864). Effects were unchanged after controlling for potential covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Alemtuzumab induction may be associated with improved outcomes in lung transplantation. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish any effects of this agent.

Alemtuzumab induction in non-hepatitis C positive liver transplant recipients

Limited data exist for the use of alemtuzumab (AL) induction in liver transplantation (LT) recipients. We compared the outcomes of hepatitis C virus-negative LT recipients who received AL induction followed by tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil without steroids to cohort who received no AL induction, tacrolimus, and a steroid taper. Fifty-five AL-induced recipients were compared to 85 non-AL-induced recipients with similar characteristics. Two-year patient survival (80% versus 88.2%, P = 0.0665) and graft survival (76.4% versus 82.4%, P = 0.1792) were not significantly different between the AL and non-AL groups, respectively. Other outcomes, including acute rejection (20% versus 30.3%), renal dysfunction (creatinine levels: 1.3 ± 0.3 versus 1.4 ± 0.6 mg/dL), and immunosuppressant monotherapy (29.1% versus 44.3%), were not significantly different between the AL and non-AL groups, respectively (P > 0.05). The number of rejection episodes (12 versus 42, P = 0.02) and the number of patients with new-onset hypertension (3 versus 15, P = 0.03) were lower in the AL group, although the incidence of all posttransplant infections was higher with AL (63.6% versus 44.3%, P = 0.03), primarily because of an increase in viral infections. In conclusion, a steroid-free AL induction regimen was associated with less hypertension and rejection but with more infectious complications; thus, the overall benefit of AL induction in LT recipients is called into question.

Hepatitis C recurrence is not adversely affected by the use of donation after cardiac death liver allografts

Many factors can worsen a recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after liver transplantation (LT). We sought to determine whether the use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers affects HCV recurrence. From January 2000 to June 2008, 37 HCV patients underwent LT with DCD allografts. The outcomes and severity of HCV recurrence were analyzed along with those for 74 matched control patients with HCV who received donation after brain death (DBD) livers. The 2 groups had similar donor and recipient characteristics, immunosuppression regimens, rates of acute cellular rejection (ACR), and HCV profiles. DCD patients had a higher incidence of primary nonfunction (19% versus 3%, P = 0.006) and significantly higher peak aspartate aminotransferase levels in comparison with DBD subjects, suggesting a greater degree of ischemia/reperfusion injury. Although the survival rates were not significantly different, DCD recipients had lower 1- and 5-year patient survival rates (83% and 69% versus 84% and 78%, respectively, P = 0.75) and graft survival rates (70% and 61% versus 82% and 74%, respectively, P = 0.24). Three hundred fourteen protocol and clinically indicated liver biopsy procedures were performed within 6 years after transplantation, and mixed modeling analysis showed that fibrosis progression rates were similar for the 2 groups (0.6 fibrosis units/year according to the Ishak modified staging system). The rates of severe HCV recurrence (retransplantation or death due to recurrent hepatitis C and/or the development of stage 4/6 fibrosis or worse within 2 years) were similar [3 DCD patients (8%) versus 11 DBD patients (15%), P = 0.38], and cytomegalovirus infection (hazard ratio = 7.9, P = 0.002, 95% confidence interval = 2.1-28.9) and ACR (hazard ratio = 6.2, P = 0.002, 95% confidence interval = 2.0-19.7) were the only independent risk factors for severe recurrence. In summary, although there was a trend of poorer overall outcomes in DCD patients, the use of DCD livers did not appear to adversely affect HCV recurrence after LT.

Alemtuzumab in solid organ transplantation and in composite tissue allotransplantation

Alemtuzumab (Campath®, Genzyme Corporation, MA, USA) is a potent monoclonal antilymphocyte, anti-CD52 antibody. Since the 1980s, alemtuzumab has been used extensively in organ transplantation as an induction agent – also with the aim of avoiding or reducing maintenance immunosuppression. We herein review the literature on alemtuzumab in solid organ and composite tissue allotransplantation with an emphasis on clinical and mechanistic aspects of alemtuzumab. In summary, the use of alemtuzumab in solid organ and composite tissue allotransplantation shows excellent early results and holds potential for wider use in conjunction with immunosuppression minimization protocols.