Donor-Specific Antibodies in Liver Transplantation

Human leukocyte antigen and donor-specific antibodies in liver transplantation

In this article, we comment on an article published in a recent issue of the World Journal of Gastroenterology. We specifically focus on the roles of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) in pediatric liver transplantation (LT), as well as the relationship between immune rejection after LT and DSA. Currently, LT remains the standard of care for pediatric patients with end-stage liver disease or severe acute liver failure. However, acute and chronic rejection continues to be a significant cause of graft dysfunction and loss. HLA mismatch significantly reduces graft survival and increases the risk of acute rejection. Among them, D→R one-way mismatch at three loci was significantly related to graft-versus-host disease incidence after LT. The adverse impact of HLA-DSAs on LT recipients is already established. Therefore, the evaluation of HLA and DSA is crucial in pediatric LT.

Basics and Art of Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation is one of the most challenging areas in the medical field. Despite that, it has already been established as a standard treatment option, especially in decompensated cirrhosis and selected cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and acute liver failure. Complications due to graft rejection, including mortality and morbidity, have greatly improved over time due to better immunosuppressive agents and management protocols. Currently, immunosuppression in liver transplant patients makes use of the best possible combinations of effective agents to achieve optimal immunosuppression for long-term graft survival. Induction agents are no longer used routinely, and the aim is to provide minimal immunosuppression in the maintenance phase. Currently available immunosuppressive agents are mainly classified as biological and pharmacological agents. Though the protocols may vary among the centers and over time, the basics of effective use usually remain similar. Most protocols use the combination of multiple agents with different mechanisms of action to reduce the dose and minimize the side effects. Along with the improvement in operative and perioperative techniques, this art of immunosuppression has contributed to the recent progress made in the outcomes of liver transplants. In this review, we will discuss the various types of immunosuppressive agents currently in use, the different protocols of immunosuppression used, and the art of optimal use for achieving maximum immunosuppression without increasing toxicity. We will also discuss the practical aspects of various immunosuppression regimens, including drug monitoring, and briefly discuss the concepts of immunosuppression minimization and withdrawal.

Immunology demystified: A guide for transplant hepatologists

Liver transplantation has become standard practice for treating end-stage liver disease. The success of the procedure relies on effective immunosuppressive medications to control the host's immune response. Despite the liver's inherent capacity to foster tolerance, the early post-transplant period is marked by significant immune reactivity. To ensure favorable outcomes, it is imperative to identify and manage various rejection types, encompassing T-cell-mediated, antibody-mediated, and chronic rejection. However, the approach to prescribing immunosuppressants relies heavily on clinical judgment rather than evidence-based criteria. Given that the majority of patients will require lifelong immuno suppression as the mechanisms underlying operational tolerance are still being investigated, healthcare providers must possess an understanding of immune responses, rejection mechanisms, and the pathways targeted by immunosuppressive drugs. This knowledge enables customization of treatments and improved patient care, even though a consensus on an optimal immunosuppressive regimen remains elusive.

The First Successful Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Caused by Severe Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Case Report

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only life-saving option when acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) does not improve with conservative therapy. Acute pancreatitis (AP) can cause chronic liver disease progression to ACLF. However, deceased donor LT for patients with AP has had mixed results, and no consensus has been established regarding the indication for LT. We report the first successful living donor LT (LDLT) for ACLF caused by severe AP. The 38-year-old patient with alcoholic liver disease was transferred to our institute with worsening refractory ascites. During the pretransplant workup, she developed severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis, resulting in grade 3 ACLF. The patient's clinical course was further complicated by high levels of donor-specific antibodies and immune thrombocytopenia. The AP gradually improved after intensive care combined with artificial liver support. The patient successfully underwent urgent LDLT with upfront splenectomy and desensitization therapy, including plasm exchange, high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, and anti-thymocyte globulin. No infection or recurrence of AP was observed postoperatively. We conclude that LDLT is a feasible option for ACLF patients caused by severe AP if a deceased donor is not readily available.

Evolving Landscape in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Stage Migration to Immunotherapy Revolution

Liver transplantation (LT) represents the primary curative option for HCC. Despite the extension of transplantation criteria and conversion with down-staging loco-regional treatments, transplantation is not always possible. The introduction of new standards of care in advanced HCC including a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies led to an improvement in response rates and could represent a promising strategy for down-staging the tumor burden. In this review, we identify reports and series, comprising a total of 43 patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors as bridging or down-staging therapies prior to LT. Overall, treated patients registered an objective response rate of 21%, and 14 patients were reduced within the Milan criteria. Graft rejection was reported in seven patients, resulting in the death of four patients; in the remaining cases, LT was performed safely after immunotherapy. Further investigations are required to define the duration of immune checkpoint inhibitors, their minimum washout period and the LT long-term safety of this strategy. Some randomized clinical trials including immunotherapy combinations, loco-regional treatment and/or tyrosine kinase inhibitors are ongoing and will likely determine the appropriateness of immune checkpoint inhibitors' administration before LT.

Donor-derived cell-free DNA levels predict graft injury in liver transplant recipients

Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) has been evaluated as a rejection marker in organ transplantation. This study sought to assess the utility of dd-cfDNA to diagnose graft injury in liver transplant recipients (LTR) and as a predictive biomarker prior to different causes of graft dysfunction. Plasma from single and multicenter LTR cohorts was analyzed for dd-cfDNA. Phenotypes of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection (AR, N = 57), normal function (TX, N = 94), and acute dysfunction no rejection (ADNR; N = 68) were divided into training and test sets. In the training set, dd-cfDNA was significantly different between AR versus TX (AUC 0.95, 5.3% cutoff) and AR versus ADNR (AUC 0.71, 20.4% cutoff). Using these cutoffs in the test set, the accuracy and NPV were 87% and 100% (AR vs. TX) and 66.7% and 87.8% (AR vs. ADNR). Blood samples collected serially from LTR demonstrated incremental elevations in dd-cfDNA prior to the onset of graft dysfunction (AR > ADNR), but not in TX. Dd-cfDNA also decreased following treatment of rejection. In conclusion, the serial elevation of dd-cfDNA identifies pre-clinical graft injury in the context of normal liver function tests and is greatest in rejection. This biomarker may help detect early signs of graft injury and rejection to inform LTR management strategies.

Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Adult Liver Transplant Recipients: A Case Series and Literature Review

Antibody-mediated rejection is a rare complication following liver transplantation and there is a lack of a comprehensive treatment strategy to provide detailed information about the dose and duration of antibody-mediated rejection treatment. This study describes eight adult liver transplantation recipients who developed antibody-mediated rejection between 2002 and 2021 in our center, as well as a review of the literature on the reported cases of antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation recipients. Our center's medical records were reviewed retrospectively to extract the necessary data on patients' characteristics, management, and outcomes. Then, a comprehensive search using Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar databases was conducted without time limitation until June, 2021. Finally, a stepwise protocol was developed for managing acute, chronic, and recurrent antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation patients, based on our own experience, reported cases in the literature, and data from kidney transplantation. By review of the literature, 24 case studies containing 64 patients were identified and their management strategies and outcomes were evaluated. Although, various combinations of corticosteroids, plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and biological agents are used in the treatment of acute antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation, treatment strategies should be classified according to the type, severity, and the timing of its onset. Given the importance of early treatment, rituximab and/or bortezomib should be started as soon as possible if no improvement in liver enzymes/bilirubin is observed during the initial treatment strategy using corticosteroids, plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Current and Evolving Indications for Simultaneous Liver Kidney Transplantation

This review will discuss the etiologies of kidney disease in liver transplant candidates, provide a historical background of the prior evolution of simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant indications, discuss the current indications for SLK including Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policies and Model for End Stage Liver Disease exception points, as well as provide an overview of the safety net kidney transplant policy. Finally, the authors explore unanswered questions and future research needed in SLK transplantation.

Donor-specific antibodies in liver transplantation: challenges in diagnosis and determining clinical impact

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our understanding of the clinical impact of donor-specific antibodies in liver transplant recipients has evolved in recent years as outcomes for liver allografts have improved and advances in diagnostic testing have made recognition of antibody mediated rejection in transplant patients more sensitive.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two main types of donor-specific antibodies - preformed and de novo - have been reported in the literature to have a negative impact on graft survival, and researchers have been able to further identify subclasses of class II donor-specific antibodies as being the most clinically impactful. Furthermore, there is evidence that donor-specific antibody formation can augment cellular rejection in liver grafts and lead to worsened clinical outcomes. Recent data have shown a higher prevalence of donor-specific antibody formation than previously reported.

SUMMARY

This review explores the most recent literature regarding the clinical impact of both preformed and de-novo donor-specific antibodies and potential management guidelines for patients undergoing liver transplantation. The best practice guidelines for undergoing monitoring for donor-specific antibody formation and protocol biopsies in sensitized patients will depend on further multiinstitutional studies.