Hypogammaglobulinemia: time to reevaluate?

Bacterial infections in lung transplantation

Lung transplantation has lower survival rates compared to other than other solid organ transplants (SOT) due to higher rates of infection and rejection-related complications, and bacterial infections (BI) are the most frequent infectious complications. Excess morbidity and mortality are not only a direct consequence of these BI, but so are subsequent loss of allograft tolerance, rejection, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction due to bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). A wide variety of pathogens can cause infections in lung transplant recipients (LTRs), including a number of nosocomial pathogens and other multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. Although pneumonia and intrathoracic infections predominate, LTRs are at risk of a number of types of infections. Risk factors include altered anatomy and function of airways, impaired immunity, the microbial flora of the donor and recipient, underlying medical conditions, and genetic factors. Further work on immune monitoring has the potential to improve outcomes. The infecting agents can be derived from the donor lung, pre-existing recipient flora, or acquired from the environment over time. Certain infections may preclude lung transplantation, but this varies from center to center, and more recent studies suggest fewer patients should be disqualified. New molecular methods allow microbiome studies of the lung, gut, and other sites that may further our knowledge of how airway colonization can result in infection and allograft loss. Surveillance, early diagnosis, and aggressive antimicrobial therapy of BI is critical in LTRs. Antibiotic resistance is a major barrier to successful management of these infections. The availability of new agents for MDR Gram-negatives may improve outcomes. Other new therapies, such as bacteriophage therapy, show promise for the future. Finally, it is important to prevent infections through peri-transplant prophylaxis, vaccination, and infection control measures.

Impact of Desensitization on Antiviral Immunity in HLA-Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients

Viral infections represent significant morbidity and mortality factors in kidney transplant recipients, with CMV, EBV, and BKV infections being most common. Desensitization (DES) with IVIg and rituximab with/without plasma exchange followed by kidney transplantation with alemtuzumab induction increased successful transplant rates in HLA-sensitized patients but may represent an increased risk for viral infections due to severe lymphocyte depletion. Here, we report on the posttransplant viral infection status in 372 DES versus 538 non-DES patients. CMV and EBV viremia were significantly lower in DES patients, while BKV viremia was similar. This trend was observed primarily in CMV sero(-), EBV sero(+), and sero(-) patients. No patient developed PTLD. The incidence of BKAN, allograft, and patient survival was similar in both groups. These viral infections were not associated with subsequent allograft rejection which occurred within 6 months after the infection. Conclusions. The IVIg + rituximab desensitization combined with alemtuzumab induction with triple immunosuppression maintenance does not increase the risk for CMV, EBV, and BKV infections. Possible factors include, in addition to posttransplant antiviral prophylaxis and PCR monitoring, presence of memory T cells and antibodies specific to CMV and likely EBV, NK cell-mediated ADCC despite lymphocyte depletion, elimination of EBV and CMV reservoirs by rituximab and alemtuzumab, and use of IVIg with antiviral properties.

Hypogammaglobulinemia and risk of severe infection in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Recent data have outlined a link between hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) and infection risk and suggested that HGG correction may decrease post-transplant infections.

METHODS

We analyzed the risk factors of HGG and the relationship between HGG and the risk of severe infection in a cohort of 318 kidney transplant recipients (KTR) who were transplanted between 2003 and 2013. Immunoglobulin (Ig) concentration was measured prospectively at day 15 (D15), month 6 (M6), month 12 (M12), and month 24 (M24) post transplant.

RESULTS

The prevalence of IgG HGG was 56% and 36.8% at D15 and M6, respectively. Age was the sole identified risk factors for D15 IgG HGG (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, P = 0.019). Risk factors for M6 IgG HGG were the presence of D15 IgG HGG (OR 6.41, P < 0.001) and treatment of acute rejection (OR 2.63, P = 0.014). Most infections occurred between D15 and M6 post transplant. Only age (hazard ratio 1.03, P < 0.001) was identified as a risk factor of infection between D15 and M6 post transplant. Survival free of infection (overall infections and bacterial or viral infections) did not differ significantly between patients with or without D15 IgG HGG. Only septicemia occurring between M6 and M12 post transplant was more frequently observed in patients with HGG. The low prevalence of severe HGG (<400 mg/dL) did not allow conclusions on the infectious risk associated with this patient subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not support the existence of a strong link between post-transplant HGG and the risk of severe infections in KTR. Correction of HGG to minimize the risk of severe infections in KTR is thus questionable and needs to be reevaluated in prospective studies.

Clinical immune-monitoring strategies for predicting infection risk in solid organ transplantation

Infectious complications remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality after solid organ transplantation (SOT), and largely depend on the net state of immunosuppression achieved with current regimens. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major opportunistic viral pathogen in this setting. The application of strategies of immunological monitoring in SOT recipients would allow tailoring of immunosuppression and prophylaxis practices according to the individual's actual risk of infection. Immune monitoring may be pathogen-specific or nonspecific. Nonspecific immune monitoring may rely on either the quantification of peripheral blood biomarkers that reflect the status of a given arm of the immune response (serum immunoglobulins and complement factors, lymphocyte sub-populations, soluble form of CD30), or on the functional assessment of T-cell responsiveness (release of intracellular adenosine triphosphate following a mitogenic stimulus). In addition, various methods are currently available for monitoring pathogen-specific responses, such as CMV-specific T-cell-mediated immune response, based on interferon-γ release assays, intracellular cytokine staining or main histocompatibility complex-tetramer technology. This review summarizes the clinical evidence to date supporting the use of these approaches to the post-transplant immune status, as well as their potential limitations. Intervention studies based on validated strategies for immune monitoring still need to be performed.