1
|
Hricik DE, Armstrong B, Alhamad T, Brennan DC, Bromberg JS, Bunnapradist S, Chandran S, Fairchild RL, Foley DP, Formica R, Gibson IW, Kesler K, Kim SJ, Mannon RB, Menon MC, Newell KA, Nickerson P, Odim J, Poggio ED, Sung R, Shapiro R, Tinckam K, Vincenti F, Heeger PS. Infliximab Induction Lacks Efficacy and Increases BK Virus Infection in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients: Results of the CTOT-19 Trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 2023; 34:145-159. [PMID: 36195441 PMCID: PMC10101585 DOI: 10.1681/asn.2022040454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2022] [Revised: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 09/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ischemia-reperfusion (IR) of a kidney transplant (KTx) upregulates TNF α production that amplifies allograft inflammation and may negatively affect transplant outcomes. METHODS We tested the effects of blocking TNF peri-KTx via a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 15-center, phase 2 clinical trial. A total of 225 primary transplant recipients of deceased-donor kidneys (KTx; 38.2% Black/African American, 44% White) were randomized to receive intravenous infliximab (IFX) 3 mg/kg or saline placebo (PLBO) initiated before kidney reperfusion. All patients received rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin induction and maintenance immunosuppression (IS) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. The primary end point was the difference between groups in mean 24-month eGFR. RESULTS There was no difference in the primary end point of 24-month eGFR between IFX (52.45 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 95% CI, 48.38 to 56.52) versus PLBO (57.35 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 95% CI, 53.18 to 61.52; P =0.1). There were no significant differences between groups in rates of delayed graft function, biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), development of de novo donor-specific antibodies, or graft loss/death. Immunosuppression did not differ, and day 7 post-KTx plasma analyses showed approximately ten-fold lower TNF ( P <0.001) in IFX versus PLBO. BK viremia requiring IS change occurred more frequently in IFX (28.9%) versus PLBO (13.4%; P =0.004), with a strong trend toward higher rates of BKV nephropathy in IFX (13.3%) versus PLBO (4.9%; P =0.06). CONCLUSIONS IFX induction therapy does not benefit recipients of kidney transplants from deceased donors on this IS regimen. Because the intervention unexpectedly increased rates of BK virus infections, our findings underscore the complexities of targeting peritransplant inflammation as a strategy to improve KTx outcomes.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02495077).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Donald E Hricik
- Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | - Tarek Alhamad
- Department of Medicine, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri
| | | | | | | | - Sindhu Chandran
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Robert L Fairchild
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute and the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - David P Foley
- Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Richard Formica
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Ian W Gibson
- Departments of Medicine and Pathology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | | | - S Joseph Kim
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Roslyn B Mannon
- Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
| | - Madhav C Menon
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | - Peter Nickerson
- Departments of Medicine and Pathology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Jonah Odim
- Transplant Branch, Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Emilio D Poggio
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute and the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Randall Sung
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Ron Shapiro
- Departments of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Recanati Miller Transplant Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Kathryn Tinckam
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Flavio Vincenti
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Peter S Heeger
- Departments of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Recanati Miller Transplant Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Szczepanik A, Choi D, Brady B, Chandran MM, Diamond A, Do V, Fredrick S, Kaiser T, Khalil K, Laub MR, Leino A, Park JM, Pierce D, Rendulic T, Wiegel JJ, Fose J, Jorgenson MR. The use of non-transplant biologics in solid organ transplant recipients: A practical review for the frontline clinician. Clin Transplant 2022; 36:e14743. [PMID: 35690919 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Biologics have become the forefront of medicine for management of autoimmune conditions, leading to improved quality of life. Many autoimmune conditions occur in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and persist following transplant. However, the use of biologics in this patient population is not well studied, and questions arise related to risk of infection and adjustments to induction and maintenance immunosuppression. Guidelines have been published highlighting management strategies of biologics around the time of elective surgical procedures, but this is not always feasible in urgent situations, especially with deceased donor transplantation. The aim of this review is to summarize the current literature regarding the use of these agents in solid organ transplant recipients, and specifically address induction and maintenance immunosuppression, as well as the need for alternative infective prevention strategies to create a practical reference for the frontline clinician, when faced with this complex clinical scenario.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Szczepanik
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - David Choi
- University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Chicago, USA
| | | | | | | | - Vincent Do
- Department of Pharmacy, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | | | | | | | - Melissa R Laub
- Department of Pharmacy, Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia, USA
| | - Abbie Leino
- Department of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Jeong M Park
- Department of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Dana Pierce
- Department of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | | | - Jillian Fose
- Department of Pharmacy, UW Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|