Association of More Intensive Induction With Less Acute Rejection Following Intestinal Transplantation: Results of 445 Consecutive Cases From a Single Center

Intestinal Re-Transplantation

The history of intestinal transplantation can be traced back to the turn of the twentieth century. Although advancements have been made, the intestine still presents a greater challenge to transplantation than does that of other solid organs, experiencing higher rates of graft rejection and lower long-term survival. Increasingly, intestinal re-transplantation (re-ITx) is seen as a viable option and is now the fourth most common indication for ITx. Changes to immunosuppression protocols, technical modifications, and infectious disease monitoring have contributed to improved outcomes. The authors review the literature on re-ITx in regard to the history, management considerations, and future directions.

Biologicals in the prevention and treatment of intestinal graft rejection: The state of the art Biologicals in Intestinal Transplantation

Intestinal transplantation is the standard treatment for patients with intestinal failure with severe complications due to parenteral nutrition; however, rejection leads to graft failure in approximately half of both adult and pediatric recipients within 5 years of transplantation. Although intensive immunosuppressive therapy is used in an attempt to reduce this risk, commonly used treatment strategies are generally practice- and/or expert-based, as head-to-head comparisons are lacking. In this ever-developing field, biologicals designed to prevent or treat rejection are used increasingly, with both infliximab and vedolizumab showing potential in the treatment of acute cellular rejection in individual cases and in relatively small patient cohorts. To help advance progress in clinical care, we review the current use of biologicals in intestinal transplantation, and we provide future perspectives to guide this progress.

Updates in induction immunosuppression regimens for intestinal transplantation

Intestinal allografts are the most immunologically complex and carry the highest risk of rejection among solid organ transplantation, necessitating complex immunosuppressive management. We evaluated the latest information regarding induction immunosuppression, with an emphasis on established, novel, and emergent therapies. We also reviewed classic and novel induction immunosuppression strategies for highly sensitized recipients. Comparable progress has been made in intestinal transplantation clinical outcomes since the implementation of induction strategies. This review shows a clear diversity of induction protocols can be observed across different centers. The field of intestinal transplantation is still in its early stages, which is further complicated by the limited number of institutions capable of intestinal transplantation and their geographical variation, which further hinders the development of adequately powered studies in comparison to other organs. As the implementation of institution-specific induction protocols becomes more refined and results are disseminated, future research efforts should be directed towards the development of efficacious induction strategies.

Liver Inclusion Appears to Be Protective Against Graft Loss-Due-to Chronic But Not Acute Rejection Following Intestinal Transplantation

In intestinal transplantation, while other centers have shown that liver-including allografts have significantly more favorable graft survival and graft loss-due-to chronic rejection (CHR) rates, our center has consistently shown that modified multivisceral (MMV) and full multivisceral (MV) allografts have significantly more favorable acute cellular rejection (ACR) and severe ACR rates compared with isolated intestine (I) and liver-intestine (LI) allografts. In the attempt to resolve this apparent discrepancy, we performed stepwise Cox multivariable analyses of the hazard rates of developing graft loss-due-to acute rejection (AR) vs. CHR among 350 consecutive intestinal transplants at our center with long-term follow-up (median: 13.5 years post-transplant). Observed percentages developing graft loss-due-to AR and CHR were 14.3% (50/350) and 6.6% (23/350), respectively. Only one baseline variable was selected into the Cox model indicating a significantly lower hazard rate of developing graft loss-due-to AR: Transplant Type MMV or MV (p < 0.000001). Conversely, two baseline variables were selected into the Cox model indicating a significantly lower hazard rate of developing graft loss-due-to CHR: Received Donor Liver (LI or MV) (p = 0.002) and Received Induction (p = 0.007). In summary, while MMV/MV transplants (who receive extensive native lymphoid tissue removal) offered protection against graft loss-due-to AR, liver-containing grafts appeared to offer protection against graft loss-due-to CHR, supporting the results of other studies.

Small bowel transplant - novel indications and recent progress

INTRODUCTION

Advances in the management of intestinal failure have led to a reduction in the number of intestinal transplants. The number of bowel transplants has been mainly stable even though a slight increase has been observed in the last 5 years.

AREAS COVERED

Standard indication includes patients with a reasonable life expectancy. Recent progress can be deduced by the increased number of intestine transplants in adults: this is due to the continuous improvement of 1-year graft survival worldwide (without differences in 3- and 5-year) associated with better abdominal wall closure techniques. This review aims to provide an update on new indications and changes in trends of pediatric and adult intestine transplantation. This analysis, which stretches through the past 5 years, is based on a collection of related manuscripts from PubMed.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Intestinal transplants should be solely intended for a group of individuals for whom indications for transplantation are clear and both medical and surgical rehabilitations have failed. Nevertheless, many protocols developed over the years have not yet solved the key question represented by the over-immunosuppression. Novel indications and recent progress in the bowel transplant field, minimal yet consistent, represent a pathway to be followed.

Immunosuppression Protocols in Intestinal and Multivisceral Transplantation-A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Intestinal transplantation (IT) and multivisceral transplantation (MVT) are curative therapies for patients with intestinal failure and severe complications associated with total parenteral nutrition. High levels of immunosuppression are required to prevent acute cellular rejection (ACR) from the bowel. Studies regarding pre-treatment, induction, and post-transplant therapy have improved graft acceptance, reducing immunosuppression doses and infectious complications. However, the low rate of IT and MVT and the small number of specialized centers have resulted in a limited number of evidence-based immunosuppression protocols. We reviewed immunosuppression in IT and MVT to draw useful conclusions regarding the best protocol strategies for the induction, maintenance, and management of ACR.

METHODS

A review was performed using the PubMed database. Articles on immunosuppression protocols in IT and MVT that addressed graft rejection, infection, or survival, published between 2006 and 2022, were selected.

RESULTS

A total of 690 articles were selected. Two researchers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected 14 articles independently. For induction, thymoglobulin, alemtuzumab, and basiliximab are the most frequently used immunosuppressants for induction. Classic maintenance therapy consists of a combination of corticosteroids and tacrolimus. Methylprednisolone with an increased tacrolimus dose is used most frequently to manage ACR. Depending on the receptor response, such as thymoglobulin, infliximab, adalimumab, or bortezomib, other immunosuppressants should be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

There have been great advances in IT and TMV immunosuppression. We conclude that the gold standard immunosuppressive protocol is triple therapy, comprising induction with thymoglobulin, maintenance with steroids for a few months, and tacrolimus and mycophenolate therapy. Innovative approaches for treating intestinal rejection episodes with more appropriate drugs, such as infliximab, adalimumab, or bortezomib, are necessary.

The Importance Of Avoiding Time-Dependent Bias When Testing The Prognostic Value Of An Intervening Event - Two Acute Cellular Rejection Examples In Intestinal Transplantation

In testing the prognostic value of the occurrence of an intervening event (clinical event that occurs post-transplant), 3 proper statistical methodologies for testing its prognostic value exist (time dependent covariate, landmark, and semi-Markov modelling methods). However, time-dependent bias has appeared in many clinical reports, whereby the intervening event is statistically treated as a baseline variable (as if it occurred at transplant). Using a single-center cohort of 445 intestinal transplant cases to test the prognostic value of 1^st acute cellular rejection (ACR) and severe (grade of) ACR on the hazard rate of developing graft loss, we demonstrate how the inclusion of such time-dependent bias can lead to severe underestimation of the true hazard ratio (HR). The (statistically more powerful) time dependent covariate method in Cox's multivariable model yielded significantly unfavorable effects of 1^st ACR (P<.0001; HR=2.492) and severe ACR (P<.0001; HR=4.531). In contrast, when using the time-dependent biased approach, multivariable analysis yielded an incorrect conclusion for the prognostic value of 1^st ACR (P=.31, HR=0.877, 35.2% of 2.492) and a much smaller estimated effect of severe ACR (P=.0008; HR=1.589; 35.1% of 4.531). In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance of avoiding time-dependent bias when testing the prognostic value of an intervening event.

Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival

OBJECTIVES

Immunosuppressive strategies for intestinal transplant have changed over time. However, specific intestinal transplant-oriented protocols and reports on long-term maintenance regimens are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of 2 different initial immunosuppressive protocols based on thymoglobulin (group A) and basiliximab (anti-interleukin 2 antibody) (group B) and of changes to maintenance immunosuppression over long-term follow-up in intestinal transplant recipients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively established protocol for intestinal transplant immunosuppression, conducted between May 2006 and December 2020. We analyzed 51 intestinal transplant recipients, with 6 patients excluded because of early death or graft loss. Acute cellular rejection frequency and grade, number of acute cellular rejection episodes, time to the first acute cellular rejection episode, response to treatment, number of patients who progressed to chronic allograft rejection, kidney function, infections, incidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and graft-versus-host disease, and patient and graft survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the study groups, there were 87 acute cellular rejection episodes in 45 patients (33 in group A and 54 in group B). We found degree of acute cellular rejection to be mild in 45 patients, moderate in 18, and severe in 24 (not significant between groups). Our comparison of induction therapy (thymoglobulin [group A] vs interleukin 2 antibody [group B]) did not show any statistical difference during clinical followup. Long-term review showed that all patients were on tacrolimus. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 62% and 45% for group A and 54% and 46% for group B, respectively (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term patient and graft outcomes reflected the use of an individualized follow-up with adjustments and changes in immunosuppressive medications according to the patient's clinical course and complications rather than based on the induction immunosuppressive protocol used.

Immunosuppression Regimens for Intestinal Transplantation in Children

Pediatric intestinal transplant serves as the only definitive treatment for children with irreversible intestinal failure. Successful intestinal transplant hinges upon appropriate management of immunosuppression. The indications for intestinal transplant have changed over time. Immunosuppression regimens can be divided into induction and maintenance phases along with treatment of acute rejection. Intestinal transplant induction now often includes antithymocyte globulin or basiliximab in addition to corticosteroids. Maintenance regimens continue to be dominated by tacrolimus, with additional agents used to either decrease goal tacrolimus levels to limit toxicity or as an adjunct in sensitized patients. Careful monitoring can help to limit serious complications, such as rejection, infection, and malignancy. Future work will aim to decrease variation in practice and identify methods to determine optimal immunosuppression for a particular patient. Furthermore, there is a need for non-invasive monitoring of the intestinal graft and functional assessments of immunosuppression.

Immunosuppression in liver and intestinal transplantation

Immunosuppression handling plays a key role in the early and long-term results of transplantation. The development of multiple immunosuppressive drugs led to numerous clincial trials searching to reach the ideal regimen. Due to heterogeneity of the studied patient cohorts and flaws in many, even randomized controlled, study designs, the answer still stands out. Nowadays triple-drug immunosuppression containing a calcineurin inhibitor (preferentially tacrolimus), an antimetabolite (using mycophenolate moffettil or Azathioprine) and short-term steroids with or without induction therapy (using anti-IL2 receptor blocker or anti-lymphocytic serum) is the preferred option in both liver and intestinal transplantation. This chapter aims, based on a critical review of the definitions of rejection, corticoresistant rejection and standard immunosuppression to give some reflections on how to reach an optimal immunosuppressive status and to conduct trials allowing to draw solid conclusions. Endpoints of future trials should not anymore focus on biopsy proven, acute and chronic, rejection but also on graft and patient survival. Correlation between early- and long-term biologic, immunologic and histopathologic findings will be fundamental to reach in much more patients the status of operational tolerance.