Risk/benefit ratio of perioperative OKT3 in cardiac transplantation

Controversies in the Postoperative Management of the Critically Ill Heart Transplant Patient

Heart transplant recipients are susceptible to a number of complications in the immediate postoperative period. Despite advances in surgical techniques, mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and immunosuppression, evidence supporting optimal management strategies of the critically ill transplant patient is lacking on many fronts. This review identifies some of these controversies with the aim of stimulating further discussion and development into these gray areas.

Heart Transplantation

Although the number of available donor hearts severely limits the epidemiologic impact of heart transplantation on patients with heart failure, patients with end-stage heart failure unresponsive to medical management currently have no other viable alternatives. Destination therapy with a ventricular assist device is the closest toward approaching clinical reality but has been plagued with problems of infection and stroke. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent developments in the field that may broaden the clinical impact of heart transplantation. For example, novel methods of cardiac preservation are being designed to safely evaluate and utilize “extended criteria” donors. Surgical techniques and medical management have reduced the incidence of postoperative right heart failure, and immunosuppressive regimens promise to limit chronic graft vascular disease.

A comparison of traditional versus contemporary immunosuppressive regimens in pediatric heart recipients

OBJECTIVES

To assess the differences in rejection and infection complications between the most common contemporary immunosuppression regimen in pediatric heart transplantation (cytolytic induction, tacrolimus based) and classic triple-therapy (cyclosporine based without induction).

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective, historical-control, observational study comparing outcomes in patients who underwent traditional immunosuppression (control group, n = 64) with those for whom the contemporary protocol was used (n = 39). Episodes of rejection, viremia (cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus), serious bacterial or fungal infections, anemia or neutropenia requiring treatment in the first year after heart transplantation, and 1-year survival were compared between traditional and contemporary immunosuppression groups.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were similar with respect to baseline demographics. There were no differences in risk of cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, or bacterial or fungal infections in the first year post-transplantation. Patients in the contemporary group were more likely to need therapy for anemia (51% vs 14%, P < .001) or neutropenia (10% vs 0%, P = .019). However, more contemporary protocol patients were rejection-free in the first year post-transplantation (63% vs 41%, P = .03). Overall graft survival was similar between groups (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

A contemporary immunosuppression regimen using tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and induction was associated with less rejection in the first year, with no difference in the risk of infection but greater risk of anemia and neutropenia requiring treatment. Long-term follow-up on these patients will evaluate the impact of the immunosuppression regimen on survival.

Lung transplant infection

Lung transplantation has become an accepted therapeutic procedure for the treatment of end‐stage pulmonary parenchymal and vascular disease. Despite improved survival rates over the decades, lung transplant recipients have lower survival rates than other solid organ transplant recipients. The morbidity and mortality following lung transplantation is largely due to infection‐ and rejection‐related complications. This article will review the common infections that develop in the lung transplant recipient, including the general risk factors for infection in this population, and the most frequent bacterial, viral, fungal and other less frequent opportunistic infections. The epidemiology, diagnosis, prophylaxis, treatment and outcomes for the different microbial pathogens will be reviewed. The effects of infection on lung transplant rejection will also be discussed.

Postoperative care of the transplanted patient

The successful delivery of optimal peri-operative care to pediatric heart transplant recipients is a vital determinant of their overall outcomes. The practitioner caring for these patients must be familiar with and treat multiple simultaneous issues in a patient who may have been critically ill preoperatively. In addition to the complexities involved in treating any child following cardiac surgery, caretakers of newly transplanted patients encounter multiple transplant-specific issues. This chapter details peri-operative management strategies, frequently encountered early morbidities, initiation of immunosuppression including induction, and short-term outcomes.

Variations in the Frequency and Type of Infections in Heart Transplantation According to the Immunosuppression Regimen

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of infection according to the immunosuppressive regimens used in our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 259 consecutive heart transplants we excluded pediatric cases, retransplants, combined transplants (lung and kidney) and immunosuppressive regimens with fewer than 10 cases. The six groups analyzed were: (1) OKT3 (7 days) + cyclosporine (CsA) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) + steroids (S); (2) OKT3 (7 days) + CsA + azathioprine (AZA) + S; (3) OKT3 (10 days) + CsA + MMF + S; (4) OKT3 (10 days) + CsA + AZA + S; (5) interleukin-2 (IL-2) antagonists + CsA + MMF + S; (6) IL-2 antagonists + tacrolimus + MMF + S. Infection was considered significant when it causal hospital admission or prolonged hospitalization.

RESULTS

With a total mean follow-up of 54 +/- 43 months, the total percentage of infection-free patients at the end of follow-up was 45.5%. Infection-free survival was lower among patients administered induction with OKT3 antibodies for 10 days, combined with cyclosporine, either with MMF (10%, group 3) or with azathioprine (27%, group 4), compared to those given IL-2 antagonists (particularly in combination with tacrolimus and MMF-69.2%, group 6).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that infection was frequent in heart transplantation. Furthermore, induction therapy with OKT3 monoclonal antibodies was associated with an important number of infections (particularly viral infections). Comparison of the treatment groups showed that the regimen associated with fever infections included an IL-2 receptor antagonist with tacrolimus, MMF, and S.

Influence of Immunosuppression Regimen on Heart Transplantation Survival

OBJECTIVE

To perform an analysis comparing long-term survival in heart transplant (HT) patients depending on the immunosuppressive regimen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 317 consecutive HT patients. We excluded pediatric cases, retransplants, combined transplants (lung and kidney), and immunosuppressive regimens with fewer than 10 cases. The six groups analyzed were: (1) OKT3 7 days + cyclosporine (CsA) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) + steroids (S); (2) OKT3 7 days + CsA + azathioprine (AZA) + S; (3) OKT3 10 days + CsA + MMF + S; (4) OKT3 10 days + CsA + AZA + S; (5) interleukin-2 (IL-2) antagonists + CsA + MMF + S; and (6) IL-2 antagonists + tacrolimus + MMF + S. Probability of survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods.

RESULTS

The groups were heterogeneous regarding the number of patients and follow-up. The baseline characteristics were similar, although there were differences in surgery times. The survivals by groups at the end of the follow-up period were: group 1: 75.8%; group 2: 51.2%; group 3: 63.6%; group 4: 25.3%; group 5: 91.2%; and group 6: 84.6%. A major reduction in survival was observed in the groups that were given induction with OKT3 monoclonal antibodies (groups 1, 2, 3, and 4), particularly when AZA was combined in the maintenance phase (groups 2 and 4) and when the induction dose was high (10-day therapy in groups 3 and 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested an association between the immunosuppressive regimen and the long-term survival of HT patients. The best results were obtained with an induction regimen based on IL-2 antagonists. On the basis of the survivals observed in this study, the maintenance combination we regard as "optimal" at this time is based on a combination of CsA, MMF, and steroids.

Drug immunosuppression therapy for adult heart transplantation. Part 2: clinical applications and results

This review describes the clinical application of classical immunosuppressive drugs as well as that of more recent drugs. All current immunosuppressive drugs target T-cell activation, and cytokine production and clonal expansion, or both. Immunosuppressive protocols can be broadly divided into induction therapy, maintenance immunosuppression, and treatment of acute rejection episodes.

Interleukin-2 receptor blockade in cardiac transplantation: influence of HLA-DR locus incompatibility on treatment efficacy

BACKGROUND

Because allograft rejection results from specific T-cell activation by donor human leukocyte antigens (HLA), new immunomodulatory therapies for organ-transplant recipients are used to selectively block T-cell activity without global immunosuppression. We investigated whether blockade of the high-affinity interleukin (IL)-2 receptor effectively prevented T-cell alloreactivity in cardiac transplantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A study of a humanized monoclonal antibody against the high-affinity IL-2 receptor (daclizumab) was performed in 70 adult, cardiac-transplant recipients. Patients were stratified based on the degree of donor-recipient HLA-DR matches. Primary and secondary endpoints were incidence and frequency of high-grade allograft rejections, IL-2-dependent, T-cell outgrowth from biopsy sites as measured by lymphocyte growth assay, and production of anti-HLA antibodies. Treatment with daclizumab significantly prevented development of high-grade acute rejection in recipients with at least one donor HLA-DR locus match during the first 3 months posttransplantation; in this group 0 of 13 (0%) treated with daclizumab experienced at least one high-grade rejection versus 3 of 13 (23%) controls (P=0.05). In addition, 1 of 12 (9%) daclizumab-treated patients experienced one or more episodes of IL-2-dependent, T-cell outgrowth versus 5 of 12 (42%) patients in the untreated group (P=0.05). In contrast, daclizumab used at the same dose and schedule was not as effective in fully HLA-DR-mismatched recipients. After cessation of daclizumab, allograft rejection increased to levels seen in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

IL-2-receptor blockade is effective for preventing alloreactivity and high-grade rejection in cardiac transplantation; however, its efficacy seemed to be influenced by the degree of donor-recipient, HLA-DR locus mismatching.

Drug treatment of clinical problems related to cardiac transplantation

In recent years, several new immunosuppressive agents have become available for the treatment of cardiac transplant recipients. Use of these agents and their potential side effects are reviewed.

The challenge of rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Since the first human heart transplantation was performed in 1967, the field of heart transplantation has advanced to the point where survival and acceptable quality of life are commonplace. Despite remarkable progress in the clinical management of rejection, rejection continues to limit survival and quality of life in the heart transplant population. This review will discuss the biologic processes involved in hyperacute rejection, acute rejection, and humoral (vascular) rejection. The development of endomyocardial biopsy techniques represented a significant advancement in the diagnosis of cardiac rejection, and endomyocardial biopsy remains the 'gold standard' in the diagnosis of cellular rejection. To date, no noninvasive parameters will diagnose rejection with adequate sensitivity and specificity. Biopsy frequency and immunosuppressive therapies may be tailored to the risk of rejection. Immunosuppression for cardiac transplantation can be divided into three major phases: 1) perioperative immunosuppression; 2) maintenance immunosuppression, and; 3) treatment of rejection. The strategy for treating transplant rejection should be influenced by several variables: 1) Histologic grade of rejection; 2) Evidence of hemodynamic compromise by ejection fraction or right heart catheterization; 3) Severity of previous rejection episodes and types of immunosuppressives used; and 4) Risk factors for rejection, including time after transplantation. Future rejection therapy will involve more sophisticated attempts to alter host responses toward the donor organ in a more specific and selective way. Despite considerable advances in the care of the heart transplant recipient, long-term survival is limited by cardiac allograft vasculopathy. The final section of this chapter will review the pathology, immunopathology, nonimmunologic risk factors, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of allograft vasculopathy.

New immunosuppressive drugs in heart transplantation

Only a few randomized clinical trials have been performed so far in heart transplant recipients, mainly because of the relatively small number of heart transplants performed worldwide each year. The main focus of the few controlled trials that have been completed has been the prevention and treatment of heart allograft rejection. In the area of pharmacologic immunosuppression, both biological agents and drugs have been the subject of investigation. Among the biological agents, chimeric monoclonal antibodies directed against the interleukin (IL)-2 receptor, which have been found to be safe and effective in renal transplant recipients, are now undergoing the test of controlled trials in heart transplant recipients. Immunosuppressive drugs that have been studied in controlled trials include calcineurin inhibitors (such as the microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine and tacrolimus) and inhibitors of purine synthesis, such as mycophenolate mofetil. Non-pharmacologic prophylactic immunosuppression with photopheresis has also been tested in a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial. New immunosuppressive regimens, such as mycophenolate mofetil combined with a monoclonal antibody against the IL-2 receptor, are being tested with the aim to reduce or eliminate calcineurin inhibitors or corticosteroids. Although clinical approaches to the induction of tolerance have undergone preliminary clinical evaluation, the ability to induce tolerance to an allograft in humans remains an elusive goal.

Modern immunosuppression

The current treatment of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) includes prophylaxis at the time of transplant, decreasing or stopping immunosuppresion and initiation of antiviral therapy in patients with polymerase chain reaction or clinical evidence of PTLD, and judicial reintroduction of immunosuppression in patients who have cleared their PTLD and have begun to have rejection. The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, notable side effects, and toxicities of the immunosuppressive agents are described in this article. At the conclusion of each section the author's current practice with these agents and treatment strategies are described.

Prevention of rejection in cardiac transplantation by blockade of the interleukin-2 receptor with a monoclonal antibody

BACKGROUND

Alloantigen-activated T cells express the high-affinity interleukin-2 receptor. Specific blockade of this receptor with the human IgG1 monoclonal antibody daclizumab may prevent rejection of allografts after cardiac transplantation without inducing global immunosuppression.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 55 nonsensitized patients undergoing a first cardiac transplantation to receive either induction therapy with daclizumab (1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight), given intravenously within 24 hours after cardiac-transplantation surgery and every two weeks thereafter, for a total of five doses, or generalized immunosuppressive therapy. Concomitant immunosuppression was achieved in both groups with cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. The primary end points were the incidence and severity of acute rejection, and the length of time to a first episode of biopsy-confirmed rejection.

RESULTS

Of the 55 patients in the study, 28 were randomly assigned to receive daclizumab and 27 served as the control group. During induction therapy, the mean frequency of acute rejection episodes (defined as a histologic grade of 2 or higher according to the classification of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplants) was 0.64 per patient in the control group and 0.19 per patient in the daclizumab group (P=0.02). Acute rejection developed in 17 of 27 patients in the control group (63 percent), as compared with 5 of 28 patients in the daclizumab group (18 percent; relative risk, 2.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 7.4; P=0.04). Throughout follow-up, there were nine patients with episodes of acute rejection of histologic grade 3 in the control group, as compared with two in the daclizumab group (P= 0.03), and the time to a first episode of rejection was significantly longer in the daclizumab group (P=0.04). There were no adverse reactions to daclizumab and no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of infection or cancer during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction therapy with daclizumab safely reduces the frequency and severity of cardiac-allograft rejection during the induction period.

Summary of the International Consensus Symposium on Advances in the Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis and Cytomegalovirus Infection

CMV infection and CMV disease can be difficult to differentiate and the diagnosis is usually based on a compatible clinical picture and the results of a diagnostic test for CMV. The only exception to this rule is in HIV-infected patients where fundoscopy is sufficient to diagnose CMV retinitis. Of the current diagnostic tests, qualitative and quantitative PCR, branched DNA and Hybrid Capture, are the most promising. The pp65 antigenemia assay has the disadvantage of being more labor-intensive than the DNA based tests. Preliminary data show that a positive qualitative PCR in a HIV-infected patient has a predictive value for the development of CMV retinitis. However, of the patients positive by qualitative PCR, those with high viral loads in quantitative PCR were at the greatest risk of CMV disease. This might make it possible to identify with great certainty the patients who will go on to develop CMV retinitis, thereby decreasing the number of patients eligible for preemptive or prophylactic therapy and increasing the cost-benefit of this therapeutic measure. Quantitative test might also be useful in monitoring response to therapy, but randomized trials comparing the test are needed. Prophylactic antiviral agents should not be used in seronegative transplant recipients receiving organs from seronegative donors. In high-risk transplant recipients, ganciclovir should be used. CMV vaccines are useful for the protection of babies from CMV seronegative mothers against congenital CMV disease. It also may be useful in seronegative transplant recipients receiving a seropositive donor organ, although the benefit of chemo prophylaxis may surpass that of vaccine. HIV-infected patients with CMV retinitis who relapse under either ganciclovir or foscarnet benefit from subsequent combination therapy, rather than switching to the other drug. However, the cost is high in terms of quality of life. Intravitreal therapy for CMV retinitis is very efficacious, suggesting that drug delivery is a problem in systemic therapy. However, intravitreal therapy does not protect against the development of CMV retinitis in the contralateral eye or from CMV disease elsewhere. Therefore, systemic therapy should be added. CMV disease of the CNS should be diagnosed early and treated agressively, possible with combination therapy. A diagnosis of CMV disease should be based on a compatible clinical picture and the demonstration of CMV in CSF by DNA or antigen assays which are more sensitive than culture.

Muromonab CD3: a reappraisal of its pharmacology and use as prophylaxis of solid organ transplant rejection

The murine monoclonal antibody muromonab CD3 (OKT3) is directed against the CD3 antigen on peripheral human T cells and effectively blocks all T cell function. Prophylaxis with muromonab CD3 (5mg intravenously once daily for 10 to 14 days) as induction therapy together with corticosteroids, azathioprine and delayed cyclosporin (sequential therapy) optimises early graft function by delaying the potentially nephrotoxic and hepatotoxic effects of cyclosporin until graft function is established. Although clinical data are limited (by inconsistencies in trial design and trial size), prophylactic muromonab CD3-based sequential therapy is significantly more effective than standard triple therapy in the prophylaxis of allograft rejection in renal and hepatic, but not cardiac, transplant recipients. Benefits are particularly notable in patients with delayed graft function. No significant between-treatment differences in patient survival have been observed. The overall efficacy of muromonab CD3- and polyclonal-based prophylactic regimens appears to be similar, although results vary between investigators and confirmation is needed. An anti-interleukin-2 monoclonal antibody-based prophylactic regimen improved graft and patient survival compared with muromonab CD3-based prophylaxis in hepatic transplant recipients. Antimuromonab CD3 antibodies may develop; however, muromonab CD3 may be successfully reused in patients with low titres. Preliminary pharmacoeconomic data suggest that mean drug costs are greater with quadruple immunosuppressive regimens containing muromonab CD3, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG) than with triple therapy. Drug costs with prophylactic muromonab CD3-based regimens were similar or greater than those with polyclonal-based protocols. The first doses of muromonab CD3 are associated with the 'cytokine-release syndrome'. More severe first-dose events include aseptic meningitis, intragraft thromboses, seizures and potentially fatal pulmonary oedema. The incidence and/or severity of cytomegalovirus infection with prophylactic muromonab CD3 based immunosuppression is similar to or greater than that with triple therapy and ATG- or ALG-based regimens. However, the risk of infection and also the observed increase in lymphoproliferative disorders appears to be related to the degree of immunosuppression rather than to the drug itself Thus, sequential muromonab CD3-based therapy is more effective than standard triple therapy (in renal and hepatic transplant recipients) and appears to be similar to that of polyclonal-based regimens in the prophylaxis of transplant rejection. Although the routine use of prophylactic muromonab CD3 in low-risk patients with primary graft function does not appear to be justified, prophylactic muromonab CD3-based therapy has a role in patients at high risk of rejection.