Tolerance: is it achievable in pediatric solid organ transplantation?

The Human Immune Response to Cadaveric and Living Donor Liver Allografts

The liver is an important contributor to the human immune system and it plays a pivotal role in the creation of both immunoreactive and tolerogenic conditions. Liver transplantation provides the best chance of survival for both children and adults with liver failure or cancer. With current demand exceeding the number of transplantable livers from donors following brain death, improved knowledge, technical advances and the desire to prevent avoidable deaths has led to the transplantation of organs from living, ABO incompatible (ABOi), cardiac death donors and machine based organ preservation with acceptable results. The liver graft is the most well-tolerated, from an immunological perspective, of all solid organ transplants. Evidence suggests successful cessation of immunosuppression is possible in ~20–40% of liver transplant recipients without immune mediated graft injury, a state known as “operational tolerance.” An immunosuppression free future following liver transplantation is an ambitious but perhaps not unachievable goal. The initial immune response following transplantation is a sterile inflammatory process mediated by the innate system and the mechanisms relate to the preservation-reperfusion process. The severity of this injury is influenced by graft factors and can have significant consequences. There are minimal experimental studies that delineate the differences in the adaptive immune response to the various forms of liver allograft. Apart from ABOi transplants, antibody mediated hyperacute rejection is rare following liver transplant. T-cell mediated rejection is common following liver transplantation and its incidence does not differ between living or deceased donor grafts. Transplantation in the first year of life results in a higher rate of operational tolerance, possibly due to a bias toward Th2 cytokines (IL4, IL10) during this period. This review further describes the current understanding of the immunological response toward liver allografts and highlight the areas of this topic yet to be fully understood.

Pediatric liver transplantation

Considerable strides have been made over the last several decades toward improving outcomes in pediatric liver transplantation. Refinements in surgical technique has allowed for the use of living donor and deceased donor split-liver grafts, thus expanding the pool of available organs and reducing waitlist mortality. The use of a multidisciplinary team continues to be paramount in the care of the transplant recipient. With improvements in overall graft and survival, indications for liver transplantation have also broadened. Currently, pediatric transplant patients have a 5-year survival of over 85%. Long-term morbidity is mainly associated with complications from immunosuppression and chronic rejection. Here we review indications for liver transplantation in children, surgical considerations, post-operative complications, and long-term outcomes.

Hematopoietic stem cells and solid organ transplantation

Solid organ transplantation provides lifesaving therapy for patients with end stage organ disease. In order for the transplanted organ to survive, the recipient must take a lifelong cocktail of immunosuppressive medications that increase the risk for infections, malignancies and drug toxicities. Data from many animal studies have shown that recipients can be made tolerant of their transplanted organ by infusing stem cells, particularly hematopoietic stem cells, prior to the transplant. The animal data have been translated into humans and now several clinical trials have demonstrated that infusion of hematopoietic stem cells, along with specialized conditioning regimens, can permit solid organ allograft survival without immunosuppressive medications. This important therapeutic advance has been made possible by understanding the immunologic mechanisms by which stem cells modify the host immune system, although it must be cautioned that the conditioning regimens are often severe and associated with significant morbidity. This review discusses the role of hematopoietic stem cells in solid organ transplantation, provides an understanding of how these stem cells modify the host immune system and describes how newer information about adaptive and innate immunity might lead to improvements in the use of hematopoietic stem cells to induce tolerance to transplanted organs.

Immunosuppression in early postnatal days induces persistent and allergen-specific immune tolerance to asthma in adult mice

Bronchial asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory condition with high morbidity, and effective treatments for asthma are limited. Allergen-specific immunotherapy can only induce peripheral immune tolerance and is not sustainable. Exploring new therapeutic strategies is of great clinical importance. Recombinant adenovirus (rAdV) was used as a vector to make cells expressing cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-immunoglobulin (CTLA4Ig) a soluble CTLA4 immunoglobulin fusion protein. Dendritic cells (DCs) were modified using the rAdVs together with allergens. Then these modified DCs were transplanted to mice before allergen sensitization. The persistence and specificity of immune tolerance were evaluated in mice challenged with asthma allergens at 3 and 7 months. DCs modified by CTLA4Ig showed increased IL-10 secretion, decreased IL-12 secretion, and T cell stimulation in vitro. Mice treated with these DCs in the early neonatal period developed tolerance against the allergens that were used to induce asthma in the adult stage. Asthma symptoms, lung damage, airway reactivity, and inflammatory response all improved. Humoral immunity indices showed that this therapeutic strategy strongly suppressed mice immune responses and was maintained for as long as 7 months. Furthermore, allergen cross-sensitization and challenge experiments demonstrated that this immune tolerance was allergen-specific. Treatment with CTLA4Ig modified DCs in the early neonatal period, inducing persistent and allergen-specific immune tolerance to asthma in adult mice. Our results suggest that it may be possible to develop a vaccine for asthma.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Calcineurin inhibitor minimisation versus continuation of calcineurin inhibitor treatment for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic success of liver transplantation has been largely attributable to the development of effective immunosuppressive treatment regimens. In particular, calcineurin inhibitors were essential in reducing acute rejection and improving early survival. Currently, more than 90% of all liver transplant recipients are treated with the calcineurin inhibitor cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Unfortunately, calcineurin inhibitors cause adverse events, such as nephrotoxicity, and because of this, minimisation (reduction and withdrawal) regimens of calcineurin inhibitor have been developed and studied. However, the benefits and harms of these minimisation regimens are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of calcineurin inhibitor minimisation for liver transplant recipients without substitution by another immunosuppressive agent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (Gluud 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Royle 2003), and the World Health Organization (WHO) international clinical trials registry platform (www.who.int/ictrp) until August 2011. In addition, we searched bibliographies of relevant articles as well as US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) drug approval reviews for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to select all randomised clinical trials investigating calcineurin inhibitor reduction or withdrawal in liver transplant recipients, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. Quasi-randomised clinical studies and cohort studies that were obtained through the searches were considered only for the reporting of harms. Trials investigating substitution of one calcineurin inhibitor by another calcineurin inhibitor were excluded. Trials investigating calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal concurrently with switching over to a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor-based regimen (everolimus or sirolimus) or mycophenolate mofetil-based regimen are the subject of a separate review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search strategies were used to obtain titles and abstracts of studies that were relevant for the review. Two authors independently scanned the references and assessed trial eligibility.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1299 references were identified by the searches. After removal of duplicates, 794 references were left. Out of these, two abstract reports of one ongoing randomised trial fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. This ongoing trial studies total withdrawal of immunosuppression in patients who receive a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) or mycophenolate mofetil as the only immunosuppressive agent. The trial compares withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil with continuation of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil. However, no trial results on the outcomes of interest to this review were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that strategies regarding calcineurin inhibitor minimisation, that is, reduction or withdrawal, without substitution versus continuation of calcineurin inhibitor treatment lack evidence from randomised trials.More research with calcineurin inhibitor reduction and withdrawal regimens is needed to optimise dosing and timing of calcineurin inhibitor treatment in order to achieve optimal patient and graft survival with a minimum of adverse events.Specifically regarding calcineurin inhibitor reduction versus no reduction, we recommend that randomised trials evaluating calcineurin inhibitor reduction versus continuation of calcineurin inhibitor treatment are conducted.Regarding calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal, we recommend that mechanisms for tolerance and 'graft acceptance' are clarified, and patient groups likely to tolerate calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal are identified in order to select the right patients for total withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors without substitution with another immunosuppressive drug. The randomised trials should only be performed in highly selected patients.

Calcineurin inhibitor minimisation versus continuation of calcineurin inhibitor treatment for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic success of liver transplantation has been largely attributable to the development of effective immunosuppressive treatment regimens. In particular, calcineurin inhibitors were essential in reducing acute rejection and improving early survival. Currently, more than 90% of all liver transplant recipients are treated with the calcineurin inhibitor cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Unfortunately, calcineurin inhibitors cause adverse events, such as nephrotoxicity, and because of this, minimisation (reduction and withdrawal) regimens of calcineurin inhibitor have been developed and studied. However, the benefits and harms of these minimisation regimens are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of calcineurin inhibitor minimisation for liver transplant recipients without substitution by another immunosuppressive agent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (Gluud 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Royle 2003), and the World Health Organization (WHO) international clinical trials registry platform (www.who.int/ictrp) until August 2011. In addition, we searched bibliographies of relevant articles as well as US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) drug approval reviews for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to select all randomised clinical trials investigating calcineurin inhibitor reduction or withdrawal in liver transplant recipients, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. Quasi-randomised clinical studies and cohort studies that were obtained through the searches were considered only for the reporting of harms. Trials investigating substitution of one calcineurin inhibitor by another calcineurin inhibitor were excluded. Trials investigating calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal concurrently with switching over to a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor-based regimen (everolimus or sirolimus) or mycophenolate mofetil-based regimen are the subject of a separate review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search strategies were used to obtain titles and abstracts of studies that were relevant for the review. Two authors independently scanned the references and assessed trial eligibility.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1299 references were identified by the searches. After removal of duplicates, 794 references were left. Out of these, two abstract reports of one ongoing randomised trial fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. This ongoing trial studies total withdrawal of immunosuppression in patients who receive a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) or mycophenolate mofetil as the only immunosuppressive agent. The trial compares withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil with continuation of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil. However, no trial results on the outcomes of interest to this review were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that strategies regarding calcineurin inhibitor minimisation, that is, reduction or withdrawal, without substitution versus continuation of calcineurin inhibitor treatment lack evidence from randomised trials.More research with calcineurin inhibitor reduction and withdrawal regimens is needed to optimise dosing and timing of calcineurin inhibitor treatment in order to achieve optimal patient and graft survival with a minimum of adverse events.Specifically regarding calcineurin inhibitor reduction versus no reduction, we recommend that randomised trials evaluating calcineurin inhibitor reduction versus continuation of calcineurin inhibitor treatment are conducted.Regarding calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal, we recommend that mechanisms for tolerance and 'graft acceptance' are clarified, and patient groups likely to tolerate calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal are identified in order to select the right patients for total withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors without substitution with another immunosuppressive drug. The randomised trials should only be performed in highly selected patients.

Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells as immunosuppressants in liver transplantation: a review of current data

This article provides an overview of the current knowledge relating to the potential use of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) acting as immunosuppressants after liver transplantation. Clinical use of BM-MSCs in liver transplantation remains experimental, as there is uncertainty as to their mechanism of action, conflicting studies in animal models, and the possibility of their cellular fusion with hepatocytes leading to potentially genetically unstable hepatocytes. These obstacles, to their underuse, have been decreasing, and BM-MSCs have elicited great interest for possible use in solid organ transplantation. Bone marrow-derived-MSCs, when transplanted systemically, might positively influence grafted organ outcome through cell-cell contact or the secretion of soluble factors that are immunomodulatory. Thus, the use of BM-MSCs to modulate organ rejection may directly or indirectly influence the survival properties of transplanted livers.

Induction of tolerance to parental parathyroid grafts using allogeneic thymus tissue in patients with DiGeorge anomaly

DiGeorge anomaly can affect both thymic and parathyroid function. Although athymia is corrected by allogeneic thymus transplantation, treatment options for hypoparathyroidism have been unsatisfactory. Parathyroid transplantation offers the potential for definitive cure but remains challenging because of graft rejection. Some allogeneic parathyroid grafts have functioned in adult recipients in the context of immunosuppression for renal transplantation. Other efforts have attempted to reduce the allogenicity of the parathyroid grafts through manipulation of the parathyroid tissues before transplantation (by using encapsulation or special culture techniques). Recently, we demonstrated the efficacy of parental parathyroid transplantation when combined with allogeneic thymus transplantation in an infant with complete DiGeorge anomaly. The recipient developed tolerance toward the parathyroid donor. The parathyroid graft has functioned for 5 years after transplantation without the need for continued immunosuppression or calcium supplementation. We observed that matching of the allogeneic thymus graft to the parathyroid donor HLA class II alleles that are unshared with the recipient appears to be associated with the induction of tolerance toward the parathyroid graft. Further work is needed to determine the optimal means for using combined allogeneic thymus and parental parathyroid transplantation to correct hypoparathyroidism in patients with both complete and partial DiGeorge anomaly.

Operational tolerance: past lessons and future prospects

Every liver transplant (LT) center has had patients who either self-discontinue immunosuppressive (IS) therapy or are deliberately withdrawn due to a research protocol or clinical concern (ie, lymphoproliferative disorder [LPD], overwhelming infection). This is understandable because maintenance IS therapy, particularly calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), is associated with significant cost, side effects, and considerable long-term morbidity and mortality. Detrimental effects of IS therapy include increased risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, bone loss, opportunistic and community-acquired infections, and malignancy. In fact, LT recipients have among the highest rates of chronic kidney disease and associated mortality among all nonkidney solid organ recipients. This mortality is only ameliorated by undergoing a curative kidney transplant, usurping costs and valuable organ resources. The search for improved treatment algorithms includes trial and error CNI dose minimization, the use of alternative IS agents (antimetabolites, mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR] inhibitors), or even complete CNI withdrawal. Yet those who are successful in achieving such operational tolerance (no immunosuppression and normal allograft function) are considered lucky. The vast majority of recipients will fail this approach, develop acute rejection or immune-mediated hepatitis, and require resumption of IS therapy. As such, withdrawal of IS following LT is not standard-of-care, leaving clinicians to currently maintain transplant patients on IS therapy for life. Nonetheless, the long-term complications of all IS therapies highlight the need for strategies to promote immunologic or operational tolerance. Clinically applicable biomarker assays signifying the potential for tolerance as well as tolerogenic IS conditioning are invariably needed if systematic, controlled rather than "hit or miss" approaches to withdrawal are considered. This review will provide an overview of the basic mechanisms of tolerance, particularly in relation to LT, data from previous IS withdrawal protocols and biomarker studies in tolerant recipients, and a discussion on the prospect of increasing the clinical feasibility and success of withdrawal.

Clinical transplantation tolerance

Transplantation is the treatment of choice for many if not most causes of end-stage organ failure. Over 20,000 organ transplant procedures were performed in the USA in 2009 to treat patients with failed or failing kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, and intestines, and there remain 85,000 individuals waiting on the transplant list. Currently, in the USA, there are over 170,000 individuals living with a transplanted organ. Virtually, all of these individuals receive maintenance immunosuppression in an attempt to maximize the function and survival of the transplanted organ. However, it is clear that the long-term use of immunosuppressive agents is associated with an extensive list of undesirable side effects that have the potential to limit the survival of the patient and transplanted organ as well as to compromise quality of life. Although the ability to induce reproducibly a state of robust, stable tolerance would address this problem, tolerance remains an infrequent event in clinical transplantation that is largely a consequence of chance. Factors limiting the broader investigation of clinical transplantation tolerance include the lack of therapeutic regimens known to favor tolerance in humans, the lack of validated assays or biomarkers predictive of tolerance, and concerns about the safety and ethics of complete withdrawal of immunosuppression given the very good results achievable with current immunosuppression. Despite these barriers, a number of investigators have continued to conduct well-designed and carefully supervised studies with the long-term goal of making clinical transplantation tolerance more feasible. The aim of this review is to summarize the status of these studies.