OKT3 serum levels as a guide for prophylactic therapy: a pilot study in kidney transplant recipients

Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Prolonging kidney transplant survival is an important clinical priority. Induction immunosuppression with antibody therapy is recommended at transplantation and non-depleting interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibodies (IL2Ra) are considered first line. It is suggested that recipients at high risk of rejection should receive lymphocyte-depleting antibodies but the relative benefits and harms of the available agents are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to: evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) when used as induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients; determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each antibody preparation; determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody preparation; and determine whether the benefits and harms vary in specific subgroups of recipients (e.g. children and sensitised recipients).

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 studies (269 records; 8956 participants; 33 with contemporary agents). Methodology was incompletely reported in most studies leading to lower confidence in the treatment estimates.Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) prevented acute graft rejection (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78). The benefits of ATG on graft rejection were similar when used with (12 studies: RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76) or without (5 studies: RR 0.65, 0.43 to 0.98) calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) treatment. ATG (with CNI therapy) had uncertain effects on death (3 to 6 months, 3 studies: RR 0.41, 0.13 to 1.22; 1 to 2 years, 5 studies: RR 0.75, 0.27 to 2.06; 5 years, 2 studies: RR 0.94, 0.11 to 7.81) and graft loss (3 to 6 months, 4 studies: RR 0.60, 0.34 to 1.05; 1 to 2 years, 3 studies: RR 0.65, 0.36 to 1.19). The effect of ATG on death-censored graft loss was uncertain at 1 to 2 years and 5 years. In non-CNI studies, ATG had uncertain effects on death but reduced death-censored graft loss (6 studies: RR 0.55, 0.38 to 0.78). When CNI and older non-CNI studies were combined, a benefit was seen with ATG at 1 to 2 years for both all-cause graft loss (7 studies: RR 0.71, 0.53 to 0.95) and death-censored graft loss (8 studies: RR 0.55, 0.39 to 0.77) but not sustained longer term. ATG increased cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (6 studies: RR 1.55, 1.24 to 1.95), leucopenia (4 studies: RR 3.86, 2.79 to 5.34) and thrombocytopenia (4 studies: RR 2.41, 1.61 to 3.61) but had uncertain effects on delayed graft function, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), and new onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT).Alemtuzumab was compared to ATG in six studies (446 patients) with early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or steroid minimisation. Alemtuzumab plus steroid minimisation reduced acute rejection compared to ATG at one year (4 studies: RR 0.57, 0.35 to 0.93). In the two studies with ESW only in the alemtuzumab arm, the effect of alemtuzumab on acute rejection at 1 year was uncertain compared to ATG (RR 1.27, 0.50 to 3.19). Alemtuzumab had uncertain effects on death (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.06 to 2.42; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.95), graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.13 to 1.30; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.06), and death-censored graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.38, 0.08 to 1.81; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 2.45, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.97) compared to ATG. Creatinine clearance was lower with alemtuzumab plus ESW at 6 months (2 studies: MD -13.35 mL/min, -23.91 to -2.80) and 2 years (2 studies: MD -12.86 mL/min, -23.73 to -2.00) compared to ATG plus triple maintenance. Across all 6 studies, the effect of alemtuzumab versus ATG was uncertain on all-cause infection, CMV infection, BK virus infection, malignancy, and PTLD. The effect of alemtuzumab with steroid minimisation on NODAT was uncertain, compared to ATG with steroid maintenance.Alemtuzumab plus ESW compared with triple maintenance without induction therapy had uncertain effects on death and all-cause graft loss at 1 year, acute rejection at 6 months and 1 year. CMV infection was increased (2 studies: RR 2.28, 1.18 to 4.40). Treatment effects were uncertain for NODAT, thrombocytopenia, and malignancy or PTLD.Rituximab had uncertain effects on death, graft loss, acute rejection and all other adverse outcomes compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ATG reduces acute rejection but has uncertain effects on death, graft survival, malignancy and NODAT, and increases CMV infection, thrombocytopenia and leucopenia. Given a 45% acute rejection risk without ATG induction, seven patients would need treatment to prevent one having rejection, while incurring an additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every 12 treated. Excluding non-CNI studies, the risk of rejection was 37% without induction with six patients needing treatment to prevent one having rejection.In the context of steroid minimisation, alemtuzumab prevents acute rejection at 1 year compared to ATG. Eleven patients would require treatment with alemtuzumab to prevent 1 having rejection, assuming a 21% rejection risk with ATG.Triple maintenance without induction therapy compared to alemtuzumab combined with ESW had similar rates of acute rejection but adverse effects including NODAT were poorly documented. Alemtuzumab plus steroid withdrawal would cause one additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every six patients treated compared to no induction and triple maintenance, in the absence of any clinical benefit. Overall, ATG and alemtuzumab decrease acute rejection at a cost of increased CMV disease while patient-centred outcomes (reduced death or lower toxicity) do not appear to be improved.

Muromonab-CD3 and antithymocyte globulin in renal transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To review the recently published medical literature for the practical and efficient use of muromonab-CD3 (OKT-3) and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in renal transplantation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (1985-February 1996). Key words used were antithymocyte globulin (ATG, Atgam), muromonab-CD3 (OKT-3, Orthoclone), and kidney transplantation. Thereafter, the search was restricted to English-language articles, clinical trials, and human studies.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

The search was reviewed for articles of interest, and pertinent references from these articles were further reviewed to supplement the initial search. The review focused on antibody therapy as induction and/or rejection therapy in renal transplantation.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although ATG and OKT-3 are effective in delaying and reducing the occurrence of acute rejection, their impact on long-term graft survival has not been established. Improved graft survival has, however, been demonstrated in patients at high risk for rejection. These risks are described in the review. As first-line or steroid-resistant rejection therapy, ATG and OKT-3 have proven efficacious. Some studies have shown improved graft survival with OKT-3. Although serious infections may occur, OKT-3 has been shown to be effective in reversing rejections resistant to both steroids and ATG. Therefore, reserving OKT-3 for steroid- or ATG-resistant rejections may be preferred over the first-line use of OKT-3, which is limited by the development of antimurine antibodies with subsequent uses. However, the benefits of first-line antibody therapy may outweigh the risks of developing these antibodies in patients for whom high-dose steroids may not be the most appropriate treatment. Other factors that need to be considered are adverse effects, which appear to be lower with ATG, cost, and total hospital charges. The accuracy of treatment outcomes analysis among these studies is limited by variations in the immunosuppressive regimens of the study centers, doses of concomitant therapies, use of prophylactic antibiotics, and time to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

While important benefits are realized from using antibody therapies in renal transplantation, their use is often associated with excess immunosuppression and increased treatment costs. Despite encouraging results from published trials, questions regarding the extent of their prophylactic use and impact on long-term outcomes need to be answered. The current literature contains no prospective, controlled, randomized comparisons of OKT-3 and ATG with standardized regimens of conventional immunosuppressive agents and antirejection protocols. The majority of studies use OKT-3 as part of the treatment protocol. Well-designed studies using ATG are lacking. Further research is needed to refine treatment protocols for ATG and OKT-3 to determine the optimal timing and dosing for these agents.