Rituximab for Humoral Rejection After Kidney Transplantation: An Update

Indicators of treatment responsiveness to rituximab and plasmapheresis in antibody-mediated rejection after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after kidney transplantation by rituximab and plasmapheresis is ambiguous. Because of its unknown efficiency and serious side effects, biomarkers, which are predictive for responsiveness to this treatment in AMR patients, are required.

METHODS

Twenty renal transplant patients were included in this retrospective study. Selection was based on Renal Index Biopsies, classified according to Banff within 3 months before treatment. Patients were categorized into responders (R) and nonresponders (NR) depending on whether they returned to dialysis within 6 months after initiation of rituximab treatment. Clinical, histopathologic (Banff classification) and serologic parameters were compared between both groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-square test.

RESULTS

In comparisons between the groups, the R group showed a 1.5-fold higher level of estimated glomerular filtration rate and a fourfold lower level of proteinuria. By contrast, there were no differences in the histologic scores for chronic transplant lesions between the groups. The t and i scores were higher in NRs, whereas Banff-C4d scores of peritubular capillaries were increased in the Rs. Transplant biopsies in the Rs exhibited more CD138+ cell infiltrates. Serologic determination of human leukocyte antigen antibodies showed higher positivity for human leukocyte antigen class II donor-specific antibodies in the R group. No significant differences in other clinical criteria were found.

CONCLUSION

Increased proteinuria, decreased graft function, and a higher grade of tubulitis and inflammation in AMR are negative predictors for responsiveness to rituximab therapy. Rituximab therapy therefore should be initiated in an early phase of AMR.

Using individual DSA titers to assess for accommodation after late humoral rejection

Management of late humoral rejection remains challenging, and DSA may persist. A case report illustrates how individual DSA titers using solid-phase-based assays may help to assess for accommodation. A male cystinosis patient received a cadaveric renal transplant at the age of 12 yr with a daclizumab, tacrolimus, MMF, and steroids-based immunosuppression. After three acute rejection episodes over the first eight months, interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA) was diagnosed on biopsy, while the immunosuppression was left unchanged with a high target exposure for both tacrolimus and MPA. One yr later, AMR type III (C4d and DSA positive) was treated with daily plasmapheresis, IVIG 100 mg/kg and pulse steroids 5 mg/kg. DSA (DR 53, DQ4, and DQ 2) were not responding until the plasma volume was increased to 2.5 plasma volumes. A second rise of creatinine confirmed worse humoral rejection; daily plasma exchange was resumed, and two doses of rituximab (375 mg/m(2)) were given. Subsequently, all DSA dropped, but only DR53 DSA remained unchanged, whereas the DQ antibodies rebounded to very strong titers. With a follow-up of over 120 days after recovery of the CD19 count, off all additional treatment and on identical immunosuppression with tacrolimus and MMF and prednisone, the patient's creatinine remained stable between 45 and 50 um while DQ DSA remain strong to very strong. We conclude that the patient is in a state of accommodation. DSA titers should be monitored when managing late humoral rejection.

Tailored desensitization strategies in ABO blood group antibody incompatible renal transplantation

ABO blood group incompatible renal transplantation, using desensitization procedures, is an effective strategy. Efforts have been made to reduce desensitization: these are usually applied to all patients indiscriminately. The Guy's Hospital ABO blood group incompatible desensitization regimen uses a tiered approach, tailoring strategy according to initial antibody titres. Sixty-two ABO blood group incompatible living donor transplant recipients were compared with 167 recipients of blood group compatible living donor renal transplants. There were no statistically significant differences in allograft survival rates at 1 or 3 years post-transplant, rejection in the first year post-transplant or renal function in the first 3 years post-transplant. There was a higher rate of death in ABO blood group incompatible transplant recipients - this could be associated with differences in age and HLA mismatch between the two groups. Four ABO blood group incompatible patients experienced antibody-mediated rejection (no episode was associated with a rise in ABO blood group antibodies). Of the patients who received no desensitization, or rituximab alone, none has experienced antibody mediated rejection or experienced allograft loss. Tailoring the use of desensitization in ABO blood group incompatible renal transplantation according to initial ABO blood group antibody titres led to comparable results to blood group compatible transplantation.

Rituximab in renal transplantation

Rituximab is a chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that leads to B cell depletion. It is not licensed for use in renal transplantation but is in widespread use in ABO blood group incompatible transplantation. It is an effective treatment for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, and is also used in both HLA antibody incompatible renal transplantation and the treatment of acute rejection. Recent evidence suggests rituximab may prevent the development of chronic antibody mediated rejection. The mechanisms underlying its effects are likely to relate both to long-term effects on plasma cell development and to the impact on B cell modulation of T cell responses. Rituximab (in multiple doses or in combination with other monoclonal antibodies and/or other immunosuppressants) may lead to an increase in infectious complications, although the evidence is not clear. Rarely, the drug can cause a cytokine release syndrome, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. It has been related to an increased risk of progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy and, recently, deaths from cardiovascular causes. Trials examining the effects of rituximab in induction therapy for compatible renal transplantation and the treatment of chronic antibody mediated rejection are ongoing. These trials should aid greater understanding of the role of B-cells in the alloresponse to renal transplantation.

Antibody-mediated rejection: an evolving entity in heart transplantation

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is gaining increasing recognition as a major complication after heart transplantation, posing a significant risk for allograft failure, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and poor survival. AMR results from activation of the humoral immune arm and the production of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) that bind to the cardiac allograft causing myocardial injury predominantly through complement activation. The diagnosis of AMR has evolved from a clinical diagnosis involving allograft dysfunction and the presence of DSA to a primarily pathologic diagnosis based on histopathology and immunopathology. Treatment for AMR is multifaceted, targeting inhibition of the humoral immune system at different levels with emerging agents including proteasome and complement inhibitors showing particular promise. While there have been significant advances in our current understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of AMR, further research is required to determine optimal diagnostic tools, therapeutic agents, and timing of treatment.

Biologics in organ transplantation

The last two decades have witnessed a pandemic in antibody development, with over 600 entering clinical studies and a total of 28 approved by the FDA and European Union. The incorporation of biologics in transplantation has made a significant impact on allograft survival. Herein, we review the armamentarium of clinical and preclinical biologics used for organ transplantation--with the exception of belatacept--from depleting and IL-2R targeting induction agents to costimulation blockade, B-cell therapeutics, BAFF and complement inhibition, anti-adhesion, and anti-cytokine approaches. While individual agents may be insufficient for tolerance induction, they provide possibilities for reduction of steroid or calcineurin inhibitor use, alternatives to rejection episodes refractory to conventional therapies, and specialized immunosuppression for highly sensitized patients.

Comparison between bortezomib and rituximab in the treatment of antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection

BACKGROUND

Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) following kidney transplantation is associated with poor allograft survival. Conventional treatment based on plasmapheresis (PPH) and the administration of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) is not satisfactory. Two compounds, more specifically targeting B cells and plasma cells, may help to improve the prognosis: rituximab, a B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor causing apoptosis of plasma cells.

METHODS

Starting in February 2009, we treated 10 consecutive patients with ABMR according to current Banff criteria with one cycle of bortezomib [1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.), Day 1, 4, 8, 11]. This group was compared to a historical control group of patients (n = 9) treated with a fixed single dose of rituximab (500 mg i.v.). All patients received PPH (6×) and IVIG (30 g). Patients with acute ABMR additionally received methylprednisolone (3 × 500 mg i.v.).

RESULTS

Patient survival in both groups was 100%. At 18 months after treatment, graft survival was 6/10 in the bortezomib group as compared to 1/9 functioning grafts in the rituximab group (P = 0.071). Renal function was superior in patients treated with bortezomib as compared to rituximab-treated patients (serum creatinine at 9 months: 2.5 ± 0.6 versus 5.1 ± 2.1 mg/dL, P = 0.008). Proteinuria was not different between both groups (9 months: 1.3 ± 1.0 versus 1.6 ± 1.6 g/day, P = n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of ABMR with bortezomib in addition to standard therapy was partially effective, whereas treatment with a fixed dose of rituximab in addition to standard therapy with PPH and IVIG did not result in sufficient long-term graft survival. In the future, new strategies including the combination of both substances and the application of higher doses must be discussed.

Acute antibody-mediated rejection in paediatric renal transplant recipients

Acute antibody-mediated rejections (aAMR) after renal transplantation are defined by rapidly deteriorating graft function, detection of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and characteristic histological features. In adults, anti-rejection strategies comprise intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), steroid pulses, plasmapheresis and rituximab. Data of children with aAMR are scarce. We report four episodes of aAMR in three children (aged 10, 10 and 11 years respectively) occurring early after renal transplantation. Pre-transplant complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatches were negative; in the case of re-transplantation repeated antigens were excluded. Basic immunosuppression comprised cyclosporine A, MMF and steroids. All four rejection episodes were histologically proven and associated with acute renal failure. De novo DSAs were detected in two aAMRs; one patient was additionally tested positive for AT1-receptor antibodies. All aAMRs were treated with steroid pulses, tacrolimus, MMF, IVIG, plasmapheresis and one single dose of rituximab. Despite therapy one graft was lost; in the remaining three cases kidney function re-established within 1-8 weeks. At follow-up, 14, 15 and 22 months' post-rejection their GFRs were 65, 88 and 105 ml/min/1.73 m(2) respectively. A combined therapy of steroid pulses, IVIG, plasmapheresis and rituximab is potentially effective in the treatment of aAMR in children.

Steroid-resistant acute allograft rejection in renal transplantation

Steroid-resistant rejection after pediatric renal transplantation forms a rare but severe complication with a guarded prognosis particularly if this occurs late after transplantation. There is a paucity of data on how to manage these challenging rejection episodes, particularly in the pediatric literature. Mohan Shenoy et al. published a case series of 15 patients who were treated with anti-thymocyte globulin for steroid-resistant acute allograft rejection over a 15-year period in a single center in this issue of Pediatric Nephrology. While the results for the early rejection group were encouraging, the results in the eight patients with late rejection episodes after transplantation were unfavorable and afflicted with a high incidence of side-effects. Important diagnostic tools such as C4d staining of the renal transplant biopsy and the measurement of donor-specific antibodies were underutilized. The editorial reviews the importance of the differentiation between humoral and cellular rejection and the challenges of treating late antibody-mediated acute rejection in these patients. A multi-center approach is required to establish a registry of these events and ideally prospective randomized interventions should be designed to provide some evidence base for the management of this challenging complication after pediatric renal transplantation.

Updated principles and clinical caveats in the management of infection in renal transplant recipients

Renal transplantation is now considered the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. In transplant recipients, infection and rejection are entwined and are unavoidable tribulations unless clinical tolerance becomes a reality. Although rejection rates have significantly decreased with the introduction of newer immunosuppressive agents, infections remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and the magnitude of the problem is on the rise. Newer infections are emerging and patterns of known infections are changing. The continuous evolution of donor and recipient characteristics also alters the landscape of infections. In clinical practice, establishing a definite diagnosis of infection in a timely manner remains a challenge in transplant recipients as compared to immunocompetent individuals. Hence a comprehensive knowledge of the principles of management of infections in renal transplant recipients is very essential. In this review, we would like to provide an overview of some of the key principles that we believe are essential in the management of infectious complications in renal transplant recipients with no focus on any individual infection.

Immunosuppressive drugs in kidney transplantation: impact on patient survival, and incidence of cardiovascular disease, malignancy and infection

Renal transplant recipients have increased mortality rates when compared with the general population. The new immunosuppressive drugs have improved short-term patient survival up to 95% at 1-2 years, but these data have to be confirmed in long-term follow-up. Furthermore, no particular regimen has proved to be superior over others with regard to patient survival. Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of mortality in renal transplant recipients and while no immunosuppressive drug has been directly associated with cardiovascular events, immunosuppressive drugs have different impacts on traditional risk factors. Corticosteroids and ciclosporin are the agents with the most negative impact on weight gain, blood pressure and lipids. Tacrolimus increases the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus. Sirolimus and everolimus have the most impact on risk factors for post-transplant hyperlipidaemia. Modifications in immunosuppression could improve the cardiovascular profile but there is little evidence regarding the beneficial effects of these changes on patient outcomes. Malignancies are also an increasing cause of mortality, overtaking cardiovascular disease in some series. Induction therapy, azathioprine and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are probably the immunosuppressive agents most linked with post-transplant malignancies. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has no negative impact on the incidence of malignancies. Target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have antioncogenic properties and they are associated with a lower incidence of malignancies. In addition, these agents have been recommended for use to decrease the dose or withdrawal of CNIs in patients with malignancies. Infections are still an important cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant recipients. Some immunosuppressive agents such as MMF increase the incidence of cytomegalovirus infection and the need for prophylactic measures in risk recipients. The use of potent immunosuppressive therapy has resulted in the appearance of BK virus nephropathy, which progresses to graft failure in a high percentage of patients. Although first associated with tacrolimus and MMF immunosuppression, recent data suggest that BK nephropathy appears with any kind of triple therapy. In conclusion, reducing risk factors for patient death should be a major target to improve outcomes after renal transplantation. Effort should be made to control cardiovascular diseases, malignancies and infections with improved use of immunosuppressive drugs. Preliminary results with belatacept suggest its safety and efficacy, and open new perspectives in the immunosuppression of de novo renal transplant recipients.