Basiliximab versus steroids in double therapy immunosuppression in liver transplantation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Transplantation. 2008;86:925-931. [PMID: 18852657 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0b013e318186b8a3]

Basiliximab Induction and Postoperative Steroid-free Immunosuppression With Tacrolimus in Pediatric Liver Transplantation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Optimizing the immunosuppressive regimen is essential to improve the long-term outcomes of pediatric liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label study to compare the safety and efficacy of 2 treatment approaches during pediatric liver transplantation: tacrolimus monotherapy following basiliximab induction (the study group) and a dual regimen of tacrolimus plus steroids (the control group). A total of 150 patients were enrolled, with 75 patients allocated to each group.

RESULTS

In both groups, recipients achieved graft and recipient overall survival rates exceeding 93%, with no statistically significant differences between them. However, the study group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR), delayed occurrence of ACR, and an improved ACR-free survival rate at 2 y compared with the control group. Notably, the study group also showed a significant reduction in the incidence of de novo donor-specific antibodies at 3-mo and 2-y posttransplant. Furthermore, 6 mo after the transplant, the study group demonstrated significant improvements in weight-for-age Z score and height-for-age Z score. No notable differences were observed in postoperative complications or the incidence of liver fibrosis between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Basiliximab induction combine with tacrolimus (TAC) monotherapy is a safe and effective immunosuppressive regimen to reduce the episodes of ACR without influencing the development of liver fibrosis and graft and recipient survival rate after pediatric liver transplantation.

T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients: a meta-analysis

Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients despite several serious complications including infection, hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence, diabetes mellitus (DM), and hypertension. We attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of T-cell specific antibody induction with complete corticosteroid avoidance. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane central library. Randomized controlled trials comparing T-cell specific antibody induction with corticosteroid induction immunosuppression were included. Our primary outcome was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection. Eleven trials involving 1683 patients were included. The incidence of acute rejection was not significantly different between the antibody and steroid induction groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.01, P = 0.06, I² = 0%). However, T-cell specific antibody induction significantly reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus infection (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33, 0.70, P = 0.0002, I² = 3%), HCV recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80, 0.99, P = 0.03, I² = 0%), DM (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32, 0.54, P < 0.0001, I² = 0%) and hypertension (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55, 0.90, P = 0.005, I² = 35%). Trial sequential analysis for acute rejection showed that the cumulative z-curve did not cross the Trial sequential boundary and the required information size was not reached. T-cell specific antibody induction compared to corticosteroid induction seems to significantly reduce opportunistic infections including cytomegalovirus infection and HCV recurrence and metabolic complications including DM and hypertension. However, given the insufficient study power, low quality of evidence, and heterogeneous immunosuppressive regimens, our results should be cautiously appreciated.

Efficacy and safety of basiliximab as initial immunosuppression in liver transplantation: A single center study

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

The interleukin-2 receptor antagonist; basiliximab is used to allow delayed introduction of Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) after liver transplantation and thus delay their renal insult. However, there is only little evidence for the safety and the efficacy of this regimen. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of basiliximab induction in liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 89 patients who were classified into two groups: standard triple immunosuppression (IS) regimen of steroid, tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (n = 47) and induction IS regimen of basiliximab, low dose steroids and MMF with delayed introduction of CNI (n = 42). All patients were followed after liver transplantation for at least six months or until death.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient survival, graft dysfunction, infection rate or type, or wound healing between both groups. The acute rejection rate was equivalent in both groups. Renal dysfunction in the first six months post-transplant was less in the basiliximab group in comparison to the other group (7.1% and 19.1% respectively).

CONCLUSION

Basiliximab-induced IS protocol is a safe regimen that reduces medium-term renal dysfunction and achieves similar survival without increasing the acute rejection or infection rate in liver transplantation recipients.

Position paper on liver and kidney diseases from the Italian Association for the Study of Liver (AISF), in collaboration with the Italian Society of Nephrology (SIN)

Liver and kidney are strictly connected in a reciprocal manner, in both the physiological and pathological condition. The Italian Association for the Study of Liver, in collaboration with the Italian Society of Nephrology, with this position paper aims to provide an up-to-date overview on the principal relationships between these two important organs. A panel of well-recognized international expert hepatologists and nephrologists identified five relevant topics: 1) The diagnosis of kidney damage in patients with chronic liver disease; 2) Acute kidney injury in liver cirrhosis; 3) Association between chronic liver disease and chronic kidney disease; 4) Kidney damage according to different etiology of liver disease; 5) Polycystic kidney and liver disease. The discussion process started with a review of the literature relating to each of the five major topics and clinical questions and related statements were subsequently formulated. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were graded according to the GRADE system. The statements presented here highlight the importance of strong collaboration between hepatologists and nephrologists for the management of critically ill patients, such as those with combined liver and kidney impairment.

Randomized trial of steroid free immunosuppression with basiliximab induction in adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT)

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are an integral part of immunosuppression following solid organ transplantation, despite their metabolic complications. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of steroid-free immunosuppression following live donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

We randomized 104 patients stratified based on pre-transplant diabetic status to either a steroid-free arm (SF-arm) (Basiliximab + Tacrolimus and Azathioprine,n = 52) or Steroid arm (S-Arm) (Steroid + Tacrolimus + Azathioprine,n = 52). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of metabolic complications (new-onset diabetes after transplant (NODAT), new-onset systemic hypertension after transplant (NOSHT), post-transplant dyslipidemia) within 6 months after transplant. Secondary endpoints included biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) within six months, patient and graft survival at 6 months.

RESULTS

The incidence NODAT was significantly higher in S-arm at 3 months (64.5%vs. 28.1%,p-0.004) and 6 months (51.6% vs. 15.6%,p-0.006). Likewise, the incidence of NOSHT (27.8% vs. 4.8%,p-0.01) and hypertriglyceridemia (26.7% vs. 8%,p-0.03) at six months was significantly higher in S-arm. However, there were no differences in BPAR (19.2% vs. 21.2%, p-0.81), time to first rejection (58 vs. 53 days, p-0.78), patient and graft survival (610 vs. 554 days,p- 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Following LDLT, basiliximab induction with tacrolimus and azathioprine maintenance resulted in significantly lower metabolic complications compared to the triple-drug regimen of steroid, tacrolimus, and azathioprine.

Immunosuppression in liver transplant

The increasing potency of immunosuppression (IS) agents resulted in significantly decreased rates of steroid resistant rejection and rejection related graft loss in liver transplantation (LT). Currently, more than two thirds of late mortality after LT is unrelated to graft function. However, the increased benefit of more potent IS drugs, coupled with the prolonged survival of transplant recipients led to longer patients exposure to these drugs and their unwanted adverse effects, creating a double-edged sword. In this article the authors describe the mechanism of action and the adverse effects of the most commonly used immunosuppressed drugs, and the most commonly used IS regimens for both induction and maintenance regimens. The balance between the ideal IS regimen to prevent rejection and the need to minimize the dose of IS drugs in order to prevent the adverse effects related to its use requires the knowledge of the science and the experience with the art of medicine. The different protocols aimed at protecting renal function and preventing the development of de novo cancer and metabolic syndrome are discussed here. The main causes of mortality late after liver transplant are associated with prolonged use of IS medications, and clear evidence exists about over-immunosuppression of recipients of liver transplant. The current status of strategies of IS minimization and withdrawal are reviewed in this article, with evaluation of its benefits and pitfalls.

Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life.

FUNDING

the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Literatura Americano e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Transplant Library until May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed; otherwise we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using 'Risk of bias' domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 completed randomised clinical trials, but only 16 studies with 1347 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Ten of the 16 trials assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). One additional study assessed complete post-operative glucocorticosteroid avoidance but could only be incorporated into qualitative analysis of the results due to limited data published in an abstract. All trials were at high risk of bias. Only eight trials reported on the type of donor used. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; very low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; low-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies for the prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antibody induction therapy aims at preventing acute cellular rejection by reducing T-cell proliferation and activation. We evaluated the efficacy and side effects of two anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies (IL2RAs), basiliximab and daclizumab, for prevention of liver transplant rejection in adult patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on basiliximab or daclizumab were identified by searching multiple databases and reference lists published up to July, 2015. Endpoints included acute rejection events and mortality rates. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and pooled for a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Patients treated with IL2RA-based therapy were less likely to suffer acute rejection compared to control group (steroid or steroid-free). Patients in all groups had similar mortality rate. In the subgroup analysis, basiliximab and daclizumab-based therapies did not reduced acute rejection rate. No significant difference was found in mortality rate between both types of IL-2RA treatment groups and control groups. In the subgroup analysis regarding experimental design, no significant difference in the acute rejection and mortality rates were found between "steroid plus IL2RA versus steroid" and "IL2RA versus steroid" groups.

CONCLUSION

IL2RA-based induction therapy reduces rate of acute rejection events but does not reduce mortality. However, optimal regimen relating to IL2RA-based induction therapy remains undetermined. KEY MESSAGES IL2RA-based induction therapy was effective in reduction of acute rejection events but it did not reduce mortality rate. Basiliximab-based induction therapy might be more effective than daclizumab-based induction therapy in reduction of acute rejection. No significant difference in acute rejection and mortality rate was found between types of IL2RAs or IL2RA-steroid combined therapy.

Basiliximab application on liver recipients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The benefits of the application of basiliximab induction therapy in liver transplantation are not clear. The present meta-analysis was to evaluate the pros and cons of basiliximab use in liver transplantation.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the associated publications in English from July 1998 to December 2015 in the following databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Basiliximab significantly decreased the incidence of de novo diabetes mellitus after liver transplantation (RR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.34-0.91; P=0.02). Subgroup analysis showed that basiliximab in combination with steroids-free immunosuppressant significantly decreased the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR=0.62; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97; P=0.04) and new-onset hypertension (RR=0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.93; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Basiliximab may be effective in reducing de novo diabetes mellitus. What is more, basiliximab in combination with steroids-free immunosuppressant shows statistical benefit to reduce biopsy-proven acute rejection and de novo hypertension.

Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As part of liver transplantation, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections resulting from the immune response of the body against transplanted organ or tissues from a different person whose tissue antigens are not compatible with those of the recipient. The optimal maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until October 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on immunosuppression for liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adult participants undergoing liver transplantation (or liver retransplantation) for any reason. We excluded trials in which participants had undergone multivisceral transplantation or participants with established graft rejections. We considered any of the various maintenance immunosuppressive regimens compared with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 26 trials (3842 participants) in the review, and 23 trials (3693 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The vast majority of the participants underwent primary liver transplantation. All of the trials were at high risk of bias, and all of the evidence was of low or very low quality. In addition, because of sparse data involving trials at high risk of bias, it is not possible to entirely rely on the results of the network meta-analysis. The trials included mainly participants undergoing primary liver transplantation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 3 to 144 months. The most common maintenance immunosuppression used as a control was tacrolimus. There was no evidence of difference in mortality (21 trials; 3492 participants) or graft loss (15 trials; 2961 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens based on the network meta-analysis. In the direct comparison, based on a single trial including 222 participants, tacrolimus plus sirolimus had increased mortality (HR 2.76, 95% CrI 1.30 to 6.69) and graft loss (HR 2.34, 95% CrI 1.28 to 4.61) at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (1 trial; 719 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (2 trials; 940 participants), renal impairment (8 trials; 2233 participants), chronic kidney disease (1 trial; 100 participants), graft rejections (any) (16 trials; 2726 participants), and graft rejections requiring treatment (5 trials; 1025 participants) between the different immunosuppressive regimens. The network meta-analysis showed that the number of adverse events was lower with cyclosporine A than with many other immunosuppressive regimens (12 trials; 1748 participants), and the risk of retransplantation (13 trials; 1994 participants) was higher with cyclosporine A than with tacrolimus (HR 3.08, 95% CrI 1.13 to 9.90). None of the trials reported number of serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or costs.

FUNDING

14 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the results of the trial; two trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 10 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-quality evidence from a single small trial from direct comparison, tacrolimus plus sirolimus increases mortality and graft loss at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. Based on very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis, we found no evidence of difference between different immunosuppressive regimens. We found very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis and low-quality evidence from direct comparison that cyclosporine A causes more retransplantation compared with tacrolimus. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid postrandomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft loss, renal impairment, chronic kidney disease, and retransplantation. Such trials should use tacrolimus as one of the control groups. Moreover, such trials ought to be designed in such a way as to ensure low risk of bias and low risks of random errors.

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, The Transplant Library, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver-transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding the perioperative period and excluding the occurrence of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using risk of bias domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 completed randomised clinical trials with a total of 1347 participants. We found 10 trials that assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use and treatment of rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). We found one ongoing trial assessing complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, which is expected to enrol 300 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.48; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; moderate-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Review on immunosuppression in liver transplantation

The optimal level of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation, in particular for the liver, is a delicate balance between the benefit of preventing rejection and the adverse side effects of immunosuppression. There is uncertainty about when this level is achieved in any individual recipient. Immunosuppression regimens vary between individual centers and changes with time as new agents and data are available. Presently concerns about the adverse side effects of calcineurin inhibitor, the main class of immunosuppressive agents used in liver transplantation (LT), has led to consideration of the use of antibody induction therapies for patients at higher risk of developing adverse side effects. The longevity of the transplanted organ is potentially improved by better management of rejection episodes and special consideration for tailoring of immunosuppression to the individual with viral hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma or pregnancy. This review provides an overview of the current strategies for post LT immunosuppression and discusses modifications to consider for special patient populations.

Comprehensive comparison of three different immunosuppressive regimens for liver transplant patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: steroid-free immunosuppression, induction immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression

The different choices of immunosuppression (IS) regimens influenced the outcomes of liver transplantation. Steroid was applied as a standard IS to prevent and treat rejections. However, steroid-related complications were increasingly prominent. This study compared the efficacy and safety of standard IS regimens with the efficacy and safety of steroid-free IS regimen and induction IS regimen in Chinese liver transplantation recipients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 329 patients who underwent liver transplantation from January 2008 to December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Three different groups of patients received standard triple-drug IS regimen of steroid, tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (triple-drug regimen group; n=57), induction-contained IS regimen of basiliximab, steroid, TAC and MMF (BS group; n=241), and induction-contained and steroid-free regimen of basiliximab, TAC and MMF (SF group; n=31), respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates. The acute rejection rate and rejection time were equivalent in different groups. But compared with BS group, higher incidences of biliary complications (11.52% vs. 30.77%, p=0.013) and graft dysfunction (0.48% vs. 13.64%, p=0.003) were observed in SF group. Furthermore, compared with the two groups, incidence of pleural effusion was also higher in SF group (15.79%, 11.96% vs. 45.45%, respectively, both p<0.01). And a trend towards less proportion of De novo diabetes was revealed in SF group. Although it was found that patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates were equivalent among three IS regimens, higher incidences of complications were demonstrated in steroid-free regimen in patients for HCC. These findings suggested that steroid-free IS regimen has no clear advantages in comparison with standard IS regimens for liver transplant recipients with HCC and the postoperative complications should be treated with concentrated attention.

Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: An evidence-based review

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and two meta-analyses were reviewed. With respect to adult patients undergoing first orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), steroid replacement resulted in fewer cases of overall acute rejection in the corticosteroid free-immunosuppression arm. Initial steroid administration for two weeks and early tacrolimus monotherapy is a feasible immunosuppression regimen without steroid replacement, although further investigations are needed in view of chronic rejections. No significant differences were noted between the treatment groups in terms of patient and graft survival independently of steroid replacement. Renal insufficiency, de novo hypertension, neurological disorders and infectious complications did not differ significantly among steroid and steroid-free groups. Diabetes mellitus, cholesterol levels and cytomegalovirus infection are more frequent in patients within the steroid group. With respect to diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia, the difference was independent of steroid replacement. In relation to transplanted hepatitis C virus patients, mycophenolate mofetil does not appear to have a significant antiviral effect despite early reports. Male gender of donors and recipients, living donors, cold ischemia times, acute rejection, and early histological recurrence were related to the development of advanced hepatitis. There is sufficient scientific clinical evidence advocating avoidance of the ab initio use of steroids in OLT.

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).

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.

Elevation of CD4+ differentiated memory T cells is associated with acute cellular and antibody-mediated rejection after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

It is now well known that the outcome after allogeneic transplantation, such as incidence of acute rejections, very much depends on the individual's immune reactivity status. There is also increasing evidence that the presence of preexisting memory T cells can affect antigraft immune responses.

METHODS

In a prospective study, we monitored peripheral CD4 and CD8 central memory, effector memory, and terminal differentiated effector memory (TEMRA) T cells in 55 patients who underwent deceased liver transplantation and received conventional immunosuppressive treatment with or without basiliximab induction. The primary endpoint of the study was acute allograft rejection during a 1-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

We observed significantly increased proportions of CD4 and CD8 TEMRA cells in patients before transplantation compared with healthy controls (P=0.006 and 0.009, respectively). This characteristic was independent of the underlying disease. In patients with no signs of acute rejection, we observed an immediate reduction of CD4 TEMRA cells. In contrast, patients who experienced acute cellular rejection, and especially antibody-mediated rejection, displayed persistent elevated TEMRA cells (P=0.017 and 0.027, respectively). Basiliximab induction therapy did not influence CD4 and CD8 TEMRA numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional immunosuppressive or basiliximab treatment cannot control the persistence of TEMRA T cells, which may contribute to acute cellular rejection and antibody-mediated rejection after liver transplantation. In the future, specific targeting of TEMRA cells in selected patients may prevent the occurrence of difficult to treat steroid-resistant rejections, thereby leading to improved patient outcome.

Comparison of steroid-free immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression for liver transplant patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Immunosuppression therapy following liver transplantation often includes steroids. However, extended corticosteroid therapy is associated with numerous complications. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of using basiliximab in place of a corticosteroid for immunosuppression following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Chinese patients. The records of 178 patients with HCC who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation from January 2003 to December 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received immunosuppression therapy that contained either basiliximab (n = 78) or steroids (n = 100) in addition to tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Assessments included complications related to liver transplantation, occurrence of steroid side effects, recurrence of HCC, and patient and graft survival. A smaller proportion of patients receiving basiliximab compared with steroids experienced de novo diabetes (38.7% vs. 91.0%, respectively) or long-term de novo diabetes mellitus (7.7% vs. 38.0%, respectively) (both, P<0.0001). The median overall and disease free survival was similar between basiliximab (50.8 months and 19.6 months, respectively) and steroid treated patients (64.2 months and 23.8 months, respectively). The 5-year overall survival and disease free survival rates was also similar between the basiliximab (42.5% and 38.9%, respectively) and steroid (50.5% and 39.2%) groups (all, P>0.730). However, in patients who met the Milan criteria basiliximab was associated with greater 5-year overall survival rate as compared with steroid therapy (88.9% vs. 57.4%, respectively, P = 0.022). These findings provide further evidence of the negative impact of steroids as a part of immunosuppression therapy following liver transplantation for HCC.

Inhibition of recall responses through complementary therapies targeting CD8+ T-cell- and alloantibody-dependent allocytotoxicity in sensitized transplant recipients

Allospecific T memory cell responses in transplant recipients arise from environmental exposure to previous transplantation or cross-reactive heterologous immunity. Unfortunately, these memory responses pose a significant barrier to the survival of transplanted tissue. We have previously reported that concurrent inhibition of CD154 and LFA-1 suppresses primary CD8-dependent rejection responses that are not controlled by conventional immunosuppressive strategies. We hypothesized that CD154- and LFA-1-mediated inhibition, by targeting activation as well as effector functions, may also be efficacious for the control of alloreactive CD8+ T-cell responses in sensitized hosts. We found that treatment with anti-LFA-1 mAb alone enhanced transplant survival and reduced CD8-mediated cytotoxicity in sensitized CD4 KO recipients. However, treatment with anti-CD154 mAb alone did not have an effect. Notably, when both CD4- and CD8-dependent rejection pathways are operative (wild-type sensitized recipients), LFA-1 significantly inhibited CD8-mediated in vivo allocytotoxicity but did not correspond with enhanced hepatocyte survival. We hypothesized that this was due to alloantibody-mediated rejection. When anti-LFA-1 mAb treatment was combined with macrophage depletion, which we have previously reported impairs alloantibody-mediated parenchymal cell damage, in vivo cytotoxic effector function was significantly decreased and was accompanied by significant enhancement of hepatocyte survival in sensitized wild-type recipients. Therefore, LFA-1 is a potent therapeutic target for reduction of CD8-mediated cytotoxicity in sensitized transplant recipients and can be combined with other treatments that target non-CD8-mediated recall alloimmunity.

Routine induction therapy in living donor liver transplantation prevents rejection but may promote recurrence of hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Routine induction therapy in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not been well described.

METHODS

We reviewed outcomes of induction therapy with rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) or basiliximab within 1 year of LDLT.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2007, 184 adults underwent LDLT and received induction therapy in addition to standard immunosuppression. Acute cellular rejection (ACR) developed in 17 of 130 patients (13.1%) who received rATG and 13 of 54 patients (24.1%) who received basiliximab (P = .066). The interval between transplantation and rejection as well as rejection severity was similar in patients who received rATG and those who received basiliximab. Hepatitis C (HCV) recurrence requiring initiation of antiviral therapy was more common in patients who received rATG compared with basiliximab (34.5% vs 8.7%; P = .021), and in those who received induction combined with tacrolimus as opposed to cyclosporine (38.5% vs 3.9%; P = .001). rATG and basiliximab were associated with excellent patient and graft survivals well as low rates of opportunistic infections and malignancies.

CONCLUSION

Induction with rATG or basiliximab was well tolerated and highly effective at preventing ACR within 1 year of LDLT, but may be associated with a higher risk of clinically significant HCV recurrence in some patients.

A humanized IgG but not IgM antibody is effective in prophylaxis and therapy of yellow fever infection in an AG129/17D-204 peripheral challenge mouse model

Yellow fever virus (YFV), a member of the genus Flavivirus, is a mosquito-borne virus found in tropical regions of Africa and South America that causes severe hepatic disease and death in humans. Despite the availability of effective vaccines, YFV is responsible for an estimated 200,000 cases and 30,000 deaths annually. There are currently no prophylactic or therapeutic strategies approved for use in human YFV infections. Furthermore, implementation of YFV 17D-204 vaccination campaigns has become problematic due to an increase in reported post-vaccinal adverse events. We have created human/murine chimeric MAbs of a YFV-reactive murine monoclonal antibody (mMAb), 2C9, that was previously shown to protect mice from lethal YFV infection and to have therapeutic activity. The new chimeric (cMAbs) were constructed by fusion of the m2C9 IgG gene variable regions with the constant regions of human IgG and IgM and expressed in Sp2 murine myelomas. The 2C9 cMAbs (2C9-cIgG and 2C9-cIgM) reacted with 17D-204 vaccine strain in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and neutralized virus in vitro similarly to the parent m2C9. Both m2C9 and 2C9-cIgG when administered prophylactically 24h prior to infection protected AG129 mice from peripheral 17D-204 challenge at antibody concentrations ≥1.27 μg/mouse; however, the 2C9-cIgM did not protect even at a dose of 127 μg/mouse. The 17D-204 infection of AG129 mice is otherwise uniformly lethal. While the m2C9 was shown previously to be therapeutically effective in YFV-infected BALB/c mice at day 4 post-infection, the m2C9 and 2C9-cIgG demonstrated therapeutic activity only when administered 1 day post-infection in 17D-204-infected AG129 mice.

Risk factors for infection after liver transplantation

Infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation. Risk factors relate to transplantation factors, donor and recipient factors. Transplant factors include ischaemia-reperfusion damage, amount of intra-operative blood transfusion, level and type of immunosuppression, rejection, and complications, prolonged intensive care stay with dialysis or ventilation, type of biliary drainage, repeat operations, re-transplantation, antibiotics, antiviral regimen, and environment. Donor risk factors include infection, prolonged intensive care stay, quality of the donor liver (e.g. steatosis), and viral status. For the recipient the most important are MELD score >30, malnutrition, renal failure, acute liver failure, presence of infection or colonisation, and immune status for viruses like cytomegalovirus. In recent years it has become clear that genetic polymorphisms in innate immunity, especially the lectin pathway of complement activation and in Toll-like receptors importantly contribute to the infection risk after liver transplantation. Therefore, the risk for infections after liver transplantation is a multifactorial problem and all factors need attention to reduce this risk.

Hybridoma technology for the generation of monoclonal antibodies

Hybridoma technology has long been a remarkable and indispensable platform for generating high-quality monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Hybridoma-derived mAbs have not only served as powerful tool reagents but also have emerged as the most rapidly expanding class of therapeutic biologics. With the establishment of mAb humanization and with the development of transgenic-humanized mice, hybridoma technology has opened new avenues for effectively generating humanized or fully human mAbs as therapeutics. In this chapter, an overview of hybridoma technology and the laboratory procedures used routinely for hybridoma generation are discussed and detailed in the following sections: cell fusion for hybridoma generation, antibody screening and characterization, hybridoma subcloning and mAb isotyping, as well as production of mAbs from hybridoma cells.

Basiliximab as therapy for acute rejection after liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus cirrhosis

Steroid bolus therapy for acute rejection after liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis often results in graft loss due to adverse effects. The efficacy and safety of basiliximab for the treatment of acute cellular rejection (ACR) in adult liver transplantation has not been adequately evaluated. Three patients received basiliximab as rescue therapy for acute rejection. The outcome and biochemical parameters were recorded before and after treatment with basiliximab. These results were compared to 11 patients who received steroid therapy for ACR. The median time from transplantation to the development of ACR was 19 days (range, 9-49 days). The degree of ACR was mild or moderate. Resolution of rejection was obtained in all patients and the median time from the onset to resolution of ACR was 16 days (range, 6-41 days). A steroid resistant reaction occurred in 2 of 11 patients and OKT3 was used, and the rejection eventually resolved in all patients. Five patients died within 2 to 22 months after transplantation and four of them died from graft failure. In the basiliximab group, there were no significant immediate adverse effects. One patient died from pneumonia 8 months after transplantation.

IN CONCLUSION

Basiliximab can be safely used as rescue therapy for ACR without significant adverse effects in patients who underwent liver transplantation for HCV cirrhosis.

Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies

Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists (IL-2Ra) are frequently used as induction therapy in liver transplant recipients to decrease the risk of acute rejection while allowing the reduction of concomitant immunosuppression. We conducted a systematic review of prospective, controlled studies to test the hypothesis that the use of IL-2Ra is associated with a decrease in acute rejection and/or a decrease in the side effects of concomitant medication. We performed a search of all major databases and secondary sources from inception to December 2010. Random effects models were used to assess the incidence of acute rejection, graft loss, patient death, and adverse side effects, with or without IL-2Ra. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore differences in effect and sources of heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (13 randomized and 5 nonrandomized) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Acute rejection at 12 months or later favored the use of IL-2Ra (relative risk [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.94) and steroid-resistant rejection was also less frequent in patients receiving IL-2Ra (RR 0.66; CI 0.48-0.91). Graft loss and patient death did not differ significantly between treatments. Patients who received IL-2Ra in addition to reduced or delayed calcineurin inhibitors had better renal function (mean difference of estimated glomerular filtration rate: 6.29 mL/min; CI 1.66-10.91) and a lower incidence of renal dysfunction (RR 0.46; CI 0.27-0.78). The use of IL-2Ra was also associated with a lower incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus, whereas the incidence of other adverse events was similar.

CONCLUSION

The use of IL-2Ra is associated with a lower incidence of acute rejection after transplantation. Concomitant immunosuppression can be reduced, avoiding long-term side effects of immunosuppression.

Basiliximab induction and delayed calcineurin inhibitor initiation in liver transplant recipients with renal insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Renal insufficiency (RI) is common after liver transplantation (LT) and may worsen due to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) use. We compared LT outcomes using basiliximab induction and delayed CNI initiation to controls with a standard CNI regimen in patients with peri-LT RI.

METHODS

All adults transplanted January 2004 to December 2007 with peri-LT RI (hemodialysis or creatinine ≥1.5 within 1 week of LT) were included in a retrospective nonrandomized cohort. Outcomes including 30-day and 1-year patient and graft survival and renal function were compared between basiliximab and control groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients (102 basiliximab, 127 controls) were analyzed, mean age 54 years, 72% men, 54% with hepatitis C virus. Mean model for end-stage liver disease (28.2 vs. 20.0; P<0.001) and creatinine (1.9 vs. 1.6; P=0.001) were higher and more patients were on hemodialysis at LT (29% vs. 6%; P<0.001) in the basiliximab group. 30-day patient (99% vs. 97%; P=0.26) and graft survival (98% vs. 95%; P=0.17), 1-year patient (87% vs. 87%; P=0.89) and graft survival (86% vs. 82%; P=0.37), mean creatinine at 1-year (1.5 vs. 1.5 mg/dL; P=0.82), and treated acute rejection (6% vs. 6%; P=0.90) were similar between basiliximab and control groups, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression, basiliximab was not significantly associated with 30-day (odds ratio, 0.10; P=0.11) or 1-year (odds ratio, 0.97; P=0.94) survival, controlling for age, previous LT, model for end-stage liver disease, and hepatitis C virus.

CONCLUSIONS

Basiliximab induction resulted in 30-day and 1-year patient, graft and renal outcomes comparable with a control group receiving standard CNI-based immunosuppression. Antibody induction with delayed CNI should be further studied prospectively.

Induction therapy: why, when, and which agent?

The long-term outcome of paediatric transplantation has improved over the last decade with an increase in the armamentarium of immunosuppressive agents. However, the battle against the hostile immune response at the time of and after transplantation continues. Induction therapy can reduce early injury, to optimize the long-term allograft survival. The goal of induction immunosuppression in paediatric transplantation is to permit the use of lower doses of maintenance immunosuppressive agents without increased rates of acute allograft rejection and chronic allograft damage. The aim of this review is to summarize the current literature relating to the use of antibody agents for induction in paediatric solid organ transplantation.

In vitro end points for the assessment of cellular immune response-modulating drugs

BACKGROUND

The concept of immunotoxicology and the development of a battery of immune-function assays to screen potential immunotoxic compounds have been increasingly used in the past. Immunotoxic outcome generally seems appropriate to evaluate the risk in drug development. Improving this approach is possible, by using methods now available, to study the effect of a chemical compound on the immune system.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the current and recent methodologies for testing the immunological effect and immunotoxic risks in drug candidates.

METHODS

The methodological details here discussed include a synthetic description of the immunocompetent cells in cell-mediated immunity and the choice of the most appropriate assay (bioassays, immunoassays, molecular biology techniques, flow cytometry).

CONCLUSION

This review offers an assessment of in vitro models to study the toxic impact of (bio)pharmaceuticals on cellular immune system and aid drug scientists in understanding the significance and the methods to approach immunotoxicology.