Efficacy of rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin for steroid-resistant acute rejection after liver transplantation

Immunotherapy and Liver Transplantation: A Narrative Review of Basic and Clinical Data

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved the management of patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, even making some of them potential candidates for liver transplantation. However, acute rejection has been observed after ICI therapy, challenging its safety in transplant settings. We summarize the key basic impact of immune checkpoints on HCC and liver transplantation. We analyze the available case reports and case series on the use of ICI therapy prior to and after liver transplantation. A three-month washout period is desirable between ICI therapy and liver transplantation to reduce the risk of acute rejection. Whenever possible, ICIs should be avoided after liver transplantation, and especially so early after a transplant. Globally, more robust prospective data in the field are required.

Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin for Treatment of Corticosteroid Refractory Acute Cellular Rejection After Lung Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) remains a major cause of death after the first year posttransplant, with acute cellular rejection (ACR) being a major risk factor for CLAD. We evaluated the use of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) for corticosteroid refractory ACR in lung transplant recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 112 adult lung transplant recipients who received rATG for refractory ACR after lung transplantation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of ACR on follow-up transbronchial biopsy. Secondary endpoints included freedom from ACR within 1 y post-rATG, CLAD progression at 1 y post-rATG, and all-cause mortality at 1 y post-rATG.

RESULTS

A complete resolution of ACR was observed in 60.2% of patients, an improvement but not complete resolution in 22.1%, and no response on follow-up biopsy in 17.8%. Mean A grade 1 y post-rATG was 0.51 in complete responders, 1.01 in partial responders, and 2.19 in nonresponders ( P  < 0.001). Complete responders had significantly less new or worsening CLAD at 1 y than partial responders (17% versus 40%; P  = 0.02). All-cause mortality rate was 14.9% in complete responders, 40% in partial responders, and 30% in nonresponders ( P  < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

rATG appears to be an effective treatment of refractory ACR in lung transplant recipients. Failure to respond to rATG carries an increased risk of early CLAD and death.

T-cell infiltrate intensity is associated with delayed response to treatment in late acute cellular rejection in pediatric liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Late acute cellular rejection (ACR) is associated with donor-specific antibodies (DSA) development, chronic rejection, and allograft loss. However, accurate predictors of late ACR treatment response are lacking. ACR is primarily T-cell mediated, yet B cells and plasma cells (PC) also infiltrate the portal areas during late ACR. To test the hypothesis that the inflammatory milieu is associated with delayed response (DR) to rejection therapy, we performed a single-center retrospective case-control study of pediatric late liver ACR using multiparameter immunofluorescence for CD4, CD8, CD68, CD20, and CD138 to identify immune cell subpopulations.

METHODS

Pediatric liver transplant recipients transplanted at <17 years of age and treated for biopsy-proven late ACR between January 2014 and 2019 were stratified into rapid response (RR) and DR based on alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization within 30 days of diagnosis. All patients received IV methylprednisolone as an initial rejection treatment. Immunofluorescence was performed on archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) liver biopsy tissue.

RESULTS

Liver biopsies from 60 episodes of late ACR in 54 patients were included in the analysis, of which 33 were DR (55%). Anti-thymocyte globulin was only required in the DR group. The frequency of liver-infiltrating CD20+ and CD8+ lymphocytes and the prevalence of autoantibodies were higher in the DR group. In univariate logistic regression analysis, serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) level at diagnosis, but not ALT, Banff score or presence of DSA, predicted DR.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher serum GGT level, presence of autoantibodies, and increased CD8+ T-cell infiltration portends DR in late ACR treatment in children.

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.

Biological therapies in patients with liver disease: are they really lifesavers?

INTRODUCTION

The liver plays a key role in the setting of immune tolerance. Targeting antigens for presentation by antigen-presenting cells in the liver can induce immune tolerance to either autoantigens from the liver itself or organs outside of the liver. Despite its non-conventional capacity for tolerance induction, the liver remains a target organ for autoimmune diseases. Whereas chronic inflammation and intra-hepatic immuno-suppressive microenvironment occurring during liver fibrosis lead to hepatocellular carcinoma. Monoclonal antibodies have revolutionized the therapeutic strategies of many autoimmune diseases and some cancers.

AREAS COVERED

We review data from literature regarding the safety and efficacy of biologics in treating hepatobiliary autoimmune diseases and primary liver cancers. Furthermore, we describe their potential use in the setting of liver transplants and their main immune-related liver adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Biological therapies have changed the natural history of main autoimmune diseases and solid cancers. Compared to other organs and disease settings, the liver lags behind in biologics and their applications. The development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies based on the immunological and antigenic characteristics of the hepatobiliary system could reduce mortality and transplant rates linked to chronic liver diseases.

Advances in Rejection Management: Prevention and Treatment

Extended survival of liver transplant recipients has brought rejection management to the forefront of liver transplant research. This article discusses T-cell-mediated rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and chronic rejection. We focus on the prevention and then discuss treatment options. Future directions of rejection management include biomarkers of rejection, which may allow for monitoring of patients who are considered high risk for rejection and detection of rejection before there is any clinical evidence to improve graft and patient survival. With improved graft life and survival of liver transplant recipients, the new frontier of rejection management focuses on immunosuppression minimization, withdrawal, and personalization.

Efficacy of Antithymocyte Globulin Treatment for Severe Centrilobular Injury Following Pediatric Liver Transplant: Clinical Significance of Monitoring Lymphocyte Subset

OBJECTIVES

Central perivenulitis can occur in association with T-cell-mediated rejection and can sometimes require strong immunosuppressant therapy as refractory rejection. Furthermore, patients with central perivenulitis are more likely to have subsequent episodes of T-cell-mediated rejection and develop chronic rejection than those without central perivenulitis. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of pediatric patients with episodes of T-cell-mediated rejection according to severity of central perivenulitis and monitored HLA-DR-positive CD8-positive T cells and recent thymic emigrants during treatment for T-cell-mediated rejection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified biopsy-proven T-cell-mediated rejection in 50 liver transplant recipients (45 with living-related donors, 5 with deceased donors) between September 2014 and August 2018. Lymphocyte subsets in peripheral blood samples were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 50 pediatric patients, 30 were boys and 20 were girls (median age at transplant of 1.1 y; interquartile range, 0.6-6.2 y). Central perivenulitis was found in 46 patients (92%), which was mild in 13, moderate in 16, and severe in 17. Antithymocyte globulin was more frequently administered to patients with severe central perivenulitis than others (P < .05). Patients with antithymocyte globulin treatment were less likely to have subsequent episodes of T-cell-mediated rejection than those without this treatment (P < .05). The absolute number of CD8-positive HLA-DR-positive T cells in patients during treatment was significantly higher than in control patients (P < .05). The absolute number of recent thymic emigrants in patients with active infection was significantly lower than in patients without infection (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest the efficacy and safety of antithymocyte globulin for treating T-cell-mediated rejection with severe central perivenulitis in pediatric liver transplant recipients and suggest that antithymocyte globulin can prevent subsequent episodes of T-cell-mediated rejection. Analyzing lymphocyte subsets during treatment for rejection may help highlight viable therapeutic strategies for achieving a good outcome.

Acute and Chronic Rejection After Liver Transplantation: What A Clinician Needs to Know

While antibody mediated hyper-acute vasculitic rejection is rare in liver transplant recipients, acute and chronic rejection have clinical significance. The liver allograft behaves differently to other solid organ transplants as acute rejection generally does not impair graft survival and chronic rejection (CR) is uncommon. The incidence of acute and chronic rejection has declined in current era due to improved immunosuppressive regimens. Acute rejection generally improves with steroid boluses and steroid resistant rejection is uncommon. CR may improve with escalation of immunosuppression or may result in irreversible loss of graft function leading to retransplantation or death. The current review discusses diagnosis and management of acute and chronic liver allograft rejection.

Significant association between FOXP3 gene polymorphism and steroid-resistant acute rejection in living donor liver transplantation

Previous studies have found that preferential accumulation of regulatory T (Treg) cells in liver allografts during acute cellular rejection (ACR) is associated with less severe rejection, suggesting a role of Treg cells in preventing excessive progress of ACR. We investigated the impact of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the Forkhead box P3 (FOXP3) gene, a master regulator gene of Treg cells, on ACR severity in liver transplant (LT) recipients. In total, 102 living donor LT patients were enrolled in this study and categorized into no rejection (n = 86), steroid-sensitive acute rejection (SSAR; n = 11), and steroid-resistant acute rejection (SRAR; n = 5). FOXP3 SNPs -3499 A/G (rs3761547), -3279 A/C (rs3761548), and -924 A/G (rs2232365) were genotyped using the polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism technique. T-cell responses to allostimulation were evaluated by the mixed lymphocyte reaction assay. We found no statistical association between the FOXP3 SNP genotype frequencies and ACR incidence. However, significantly higher incidence of SRAR was observed in LT patients with the FOXP3 rs3761548 A/C+A/A genotype than in those with the C/C genotype (A/C+A/A versus C/C; no rejection, SSAR, SRAR, 85.71%, 0%, 14.29% versus 83.58%, 16.42%, 0%, respectively; P =  0.0005). The mixed lymphocyte reaction assay performed at the time of ACR diagnosis showed higher anti-donor CD4+ T-cell responses in patients carrying rs3761548 A/C+A/A than in those with the C/C genotype (P =  0.019). No significant association was observed between the incidence of SRAR and either rs3761547A/G or rs2232365 A/G. Infectious complications and overall survival were not related to FOXP3 SNPs. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that FOXP3 SNP rs3761548 A/C might be a predisposing factor for SRAR after liver transplantation. (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:406-420).

Management of Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation outcomes have significantly improved over the past few decades owing largely to the introduction of effective immunosuppression medications. Further comprehension of the unique immune microenvironment of the liver has led to the development of newer molecular targeted therapeutics. Understanding the mechanism of action and adverse effect profiles of these medications is crucial for appropriate management of posttransplant patients. In this review, the author describes the immunologic response elicited by liver transplantation, chronicles the various immunosuppressant drug classes, discusses the evidence behind their use, and evaluates the management of special subpopulations of posttransplantation patients.

Erratum: Medicine, Volume 95, Issue 23: Erratum

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003588.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003661.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003679.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003711.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003768.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003778.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003803.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003821.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003828.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003832.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003833.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003834.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003835.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003836.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003838.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003841.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003844.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003849.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003855.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003856.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003858.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003868.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003870.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003877.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003883.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003886.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003887.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003738.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003777.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003853.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003859.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003784.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003874.].