Successful reduction of immunosuppression in older renal transplant recipients who exhibit donor-specific regulation

Regulatory T cells in renal disease

The kidney is vulnerable to injury, both acute and chronic from a variety of immune and metabolic insults, all of which at least to some degree involve inflammation. Regulatory T cells modulate systemic autoimmune and allogenic responses in glomerulonephritis and transplantation. Intrarenal regulatory T cells (Tregs), including those recruited to the kidney, have suppressive effects on both adaptive and innate immune cells, and probably also intrinsic kidney cells. Evidence from autoimmune glomerulonephritis implicates antigen-specific Tregs in HLA-mediated dominant protection, while in several human renal diseases Tregs are abnormal in number or phenotype. Experimentally, Tregs can protect the kidney from injury in a variety of renal diseases. Mechanisms of Treg recruitment to the kidney include via the chemokine receptors CCR6 and CXCR3 and potentially, at least in innate injury TLR9. The effects of Tregs may be context dependent, with evidence for roles for immunoregulatory roles both for endogenous Tbet-expressing Tregs and STAT-3-expressing Tregs in experimental glomerulonephritis. Most experimental work and some of the ongoing human trials in renal transplantation have focussed on unfractionated thymically derived Tregs (tTregs). However, induced Tregs (iTregs), type 1 regulatory T (Tr1) cells and in particular antigen-specific Tregs also have therapeutic potential not only in renal transplantation, but also in other kidney diseases.

Operational tolerance in kidney transplantation and associated biomarkers

In the 1960s, our predecessors won a historical battle against acute rejection and ensured that transplantation became a common life-saving treatment. In parallel with this success, or perhaps because of it, we lost the battle for long-lived transplants, being overwhelmed with chronic immune insults and the toxicities of immunosuppression. It is likely that current powerful treatments block acute rejection, but at the same time condemn the few circulating donor cells that would have been able to elicit immunoregulatory host responses towards the allograft. Under these conditions, spontaneously tolerant kidney recipients - i.e. patients who maintain allograft function in the absence of immunosuppression - are merely accidents; they are scarce, mysterious and precious. Several teams pursue the goal of finding a biomarker that would guide us towards the 'just right' level of immunosuppression that avoids rejection while leaving some space for donor immune cells. Some cellular assays are attractive because they are antigen-specific, and provide a comprehensive view of immune responses toward the graft. These seem to closely follow patient regulatory capacities. However, these tests are cumbersome, and require abundant cellular material from both donor and recipient. The latest newcomers, non-antigen-specific recipient blood transcriptomic biomarkers, offer the promise that a practicable and simple signature may be found that overcomes the complexity of a system in which an infinite number of individual cell combinations can lead possibly to graft acceptance. Biomarker studies are as much an objective - identifying tolerant patients, enabling tolerance trials - as a means to deciphering the underlying mechanisms of one of the most important current issues in transplantation.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting.The 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted.

Regulatory T cells in kidney disease and transplantation

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) have been shown to be important in maintaining immune homeostasis and preventing autoimmune disease, including autoimmune kidney disease. It is also likely that they play a role in limiting kidney transplant rejection and potentially in promoting transplant tolerance. Although other subsets of Tregs exist, the most potent and well-defined Tregs are the Foxp3 expressing CD4(+) Tregs derived from the thymus or generated peripherally. These CD4(+)Foxp3(+) Tregs limit autoimmune renal disease in animal models, especially chronic kidney disease, and kidney transplantation. Furthermore, other subsets of Tregs, including CD8 Tregs, may play a role in immunosuppression in kidney disease. The development and protective mechanisms of Tregs in kidney disease and kidney transplantation involve multiple mechanisms of suppression. Here we review the development and function of CD4(+)Foxp3(+) Tregs. We discuss the specific application of Tregs as a therapeutic strategy to prevent kidney disease and to limit kidney transplant rejection and detail clinical trials in this area of transplantation.

Trans-vivo delayed type hypersensitivity assay for antigen specific regulation

Delayed-type hypersensitivity response (DTH) is a rapid in vivo manifestation of T cell-dependent immune response to a foreign antigen (Ag) that the host immune system has experienced in the recent past. DTH reactions are often divided into a sensitization phase, referring to the initial antigen experience, and a challenge phase, which usually follows several days after sensitization. The lack of a delayed-type hypersensitivity response to a recall Ag demonstrated by skin testing is often regarded as an evidence of anergy. The traditional DTH assay has been effectively used in diagnosing many microbial infections. Despite sharing similar immune features such as lymphocyte infiltration, edema, and tissue necrosis, the direct DTH is not a feasible diagnostic technique in transplant patients because of the possibility of direct injection resulting in sensitization to donor antigens and graft loss. To avoid this problem, the human-to-mouse "trans-vivo" DTH assay was developed (1,2). This test is essentially a transfer DTH assay, in which human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and specific antigens were injected subcutaneously into the pinnae or footpad of a naïve mouse and DTH-like swelling is measured after 18-24 hr (3). The antigen presentation by human antigen presenting cells such as macrophages or DCs to T cells in highly vascular mouse tissue triggers the inflammatory cascade and attracts mouse immune cells resulting in swelling responses. The response is antigen-specific and requires prior antigen sensitization. A positive donor-reactive DTH response in the Tv-DTH assay reflects that the transplant patient has developed a pro-inflammatory immune disposition toward graft alloantigens. The most important feature of this assay is that it can also be used to detect regulatory T cells, which cause bystander suppression. Bystander suppression of a DTH recall response in the presence of donor antigen is characteristic of transplant recipients with accepted allografts (2,4-14). The monitoring of transplant recipients for alloreactivity and regulation by Tv-DTH may identify a subset of patients who could benefit from reduction of immunosuppression without elevated risk of rejection or deteriorating renal function. A promising area is the application of the Tv-DTH assay in monitoring of autoimmunity(15,16) and also in tumor immunology (17).

Donor-specific indirect pathway analysis reveals a B-cell-independent signature which reflects outcomes in kidney transplant recipients

To investigate the role of donor-specific indirect pathway T cells in renal transplant tolerance, we analyzed responses in peripheral blood of 45 patients using the trans-vivo delayed-type hypersensitivity assay. Subjects were enrolled into five groups-identical twin, clinically tolerant (TOL), steroid monotherapy (MONO), standard immunosuppression (SI) and chronic rejection (CR)-based on transplant type, posttransplant immunosuppression and graft function. The indirect pathway was active in all groups except twins but distinct intergroup differences were evident, corresponding to clinical status. The antidonor indirect pathway T effector response increased across patient groups (TOL < MONO < SI < CR; p < 0.0001) whereas antidonor indirect pathway T regulatory response decreased (TOL > MONO = SI > CR; p < 0.005). This pattern differed from that seen in circulating naïve B-cell numbers and in a cross-platform biomarker analysis, where patients on monotherapy were not ranked closest to TOL patients, but rather were indistinguishable from chronically rejecting patients. Cross-sectional analysis of the indirect pathway revealed a spectrum in T-regulatory:T-effector balance, ranging from TOL patients having predominantly regulatory responses to CR patients having predominantly effector responses. Therefore, the indirect pathway measurements reflect a distinct aspect of tolerance from the recently reported elevation of circulating naïve B cells, which was apparent only in recipients off immunosuppression.

Approaching the promise of operational tolerance in clinical transplantation

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

Co-inhibitory molecules: Controlling the effectors or controlling the controllers?

Nearly forty years ago the concept was proposed that lymphocytes are negatively regulated by what are now called co-inhibitory signals. Nevertheless, it is only the more recent identification of numerous co-inhibitors and their critical functions that has brought co-inhibition to the forefront of immunologic research. Although co-inhibitory signals have been considered to directly regulate conventional T cells, more recent data has indicated a convergence between co-inhibitory signals and the other major negative control mechanism in the periphery that is mediated by regulatory T cells. Furthermore, it is now clear that lymphocytes are not the sole domain of co-inhibitory signals, as cells of the innate immune system, themselves controllers of immunity, are regulated by co-inhibitors they express. Thus, in order to better understand negative regulation in the periphery and apply this knowledge to the treatment of disease, a major focus for the future should be the definition of the conditions where co-inhibition controls effector cells intrinsically versus extrinsically (via regulatory or innate cells).