ALG versus OKT3 for treatment of steroid-resistant rejection in renal transplantation: ten-year follow-up results of a randomized trial

Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for treating acute rejection episodes in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Registry data shows that the incidence of acute rejection has been steadily falling. Approximately 10% to 35% of kidney recipients will undergo treatment for at least one episode of acute rejection within the first post-transplant year. Treatment options include pulsed steroid therapy, the use of an antibody preparation, the alteration of background immunosuppression, or combinations of these options. Over recent years, new treatment strategies have evolved, and in many parts of the world there has been an increase in use of tacrolimus and mycophenolate and a reduction in the use of cyclosporin and azathioprine use as baseline immunosuppression to prevent acute rejection. There are also global variations in use of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies to treat acute rejection. This is an update of a review published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to: (1) to evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different classes of antibody preparation in preventing graft loss and resolving cellular or humoral rejection episodes when used as a treatment for first episode of rejection in kidney transplant recipients; (2) evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different classes of antibody preparation in preventing graft loss and resolving cellular or humoral rejection episodes when used as a treatment for steroid-resistant rejection in kidney transplant recipients; (3) determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each type of antibody preparation; and (4) determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody within each type.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 18 April 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing all mono- and polyclonal antibody preparations, given in combination with any other immunosuppressive agents, for the treatment of cellular or humoral graft rejection, when compared to any other treatment for acute rejection were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new studies (18 reports, 346 participants) in this update, bring the total number of included studies to 31 (76 reports, 1680 participants). Studies were generally small, incompletely reported, especially for potential harms, and did not define outcome measures adequately. The risk of bias was inadequate or unclear risk for random sequence generation (81%), allocation concealment (87%) and other bias (87%). There were, however, a predominance of low risk of bias for blinding (75%) and incomplete outcome data (80%) across all the studies. Selective reporting had a mixture of low (58%), high (29%), and unclear (13%) risk of bias.Seventeen studies (1005 participants) compared therapies for first acute cellular rejection episodes. Antibody therapy was probably better than steroid in reversing acute cellular rejection (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82; moderate certainty) and preventing subsequent rejection (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; moderate certainty), may be better for preventing graft loss (death censored: (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.12; low certainty) but there was little or no difference in death at one year. Adverse effects of treatment (including fever, chills and malaise following drug administration) were probably reduced with steroid therapy (RR 23.88, 95% CI 5.10 to 111.86; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty).Twelve studies (576 patients) investigated antibody treatment for steroid-resistant rejection. There was little or no benefit of muromonab-CD3 over ATG or ALG in reversing rejection, preventing subsequent rejection, or preventing graft loss or death. Two studies compared the use of rituximab for treatment of acute humoral rejection (58 patients). Muromonab-CD3 treated patients suffered three times more than those receiving either ATG or T10B9, from a syndrome of fever, chills and malaise following drug administration (RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.87 to 5.21; I2 = 31%), and experienced more neurological side effects (RR 13.10 95% CI 1.43 to 120.05; I2 = 36%) (low certainty evidence).There was no evidence of additional benefit from rituximab in terms of either reversal of rejection (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64), or graft loss or death 12 months (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.35). Rituximab plus steroids probably increases the risk of urinary tract infection/pyelonephritis (RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.80 to 18.21).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In reversing first acute cellular rejection and preventing graft loss, any antibody is probably better than steroid, but there is little or no difference in subsequent rejection and patient survival. In reversing steroid-resistant rejection there was little or no difference between different antibodies over a period of 12 months, with limited data beyond that time frame. In treating acute humoral rejection, there was no evidence that the use of antibody therapy conferred additional benefit in terms of reversal of rejection, or death or graft loss.Although this is an updated review, the majority of newer included studies provide additional evidence from the cyclosporin/azathioprine era of kidney transplantation and therefore conclusions cannot necessarily be extrapolated to patients treated with more contemporary immunosuppressive regimens which include tacrolimus/mycophenolate or sirolimus. However, many kidney transplant centres around the world continue to use older immunosuppressive regimes and the findings of this review remain strongly relevant to their clinical practice.Larger studies with standardised reproducible outcome criteria are needed to investigate the outcomes and risks of antibody treatments for acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients receiving contemporary immunosuppressive regimes.

Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for treating acute rejection episodes in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Registry data shows that between 15-35% kidney recipients will undergo treatment for at least one episode of acute rejection within the first post transplant year. Treatment options include pulsed steroid therapy, the use of an antibody preparation, the alteration of background immunosuppression, or combinations of these options. In 2002, in the US, 61.4% patients with an acute rejection episode received steroids, 20.4% received an antibody preparation and 18.2% received both.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of mono- or polyclonal antibodies (Ab) used to treat acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966-June 2005), EMBASE (1980-June 2005), and the specialised register of the Cochrane Renal Group (June 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing all mono- and polyclonal antibody preparations, given in combination with any other immunosuppressive agents, for the treatment of acute graft rejection, when compared to any other treatment for acute rejection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Results are expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty one trials (49 reports, 1387 patients) were identified. Trials were generally small, incompletely reported, especially for potential harms, and did not define outcome measures adequately. Fourteen trials (965 patients) compared therapies for first rejection episodes. Ab was better than steroid in reversing rejection (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87) and preventing graft loss (death censored RR 0.74, CI 0.58 to 0.95) but there was no difference in preventing subsequent rejection or death at one year. Seven trials (422 patients) investigated Ab treatment of steroid-resistant rejection. There was no benefit of muromonab-CD3 over ATG or ALG in either reversing rejection, preventing subsequent rejection, preventing graft loss or death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In reversing first rejection, any antibody is better than steroid and also prevents graft loss, but subsequent rejection and patient survival are not significantly different. In reversing steroid-resistant rejection the effects of different antibodies are also not significantly different. Given the clinical problem caused by acute rejection, data are very sparse, and clinically important differences in outcomes between widely used interventions have not been excluded. Standardised reproducible outcome criteria are needed.

OKT3 Therapy in Addition to Tacrolimus Is Associated with Improved Long-Term Function in Patients with Steroid Refractory Renal Allograft Rejection

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term allograft salvage rates of patients with steroid refractory allograft rejection after kidney transplantation and to identify factors indicating a successful outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with continuing rejection after high-dose steroids were included in the study. Baseline immunosuppression was switched from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in all patients. Twenty patients additionally received OKT3 as antirejection therapy. Patients having received a cadaveric renal transplant in 1995, excluding patients with steroid resistant rejection, were chosen as a control cohort.

RESULTS

Patient survival rates were 96% (n = 48) and 90% (n = 45) and allograft survival rates were 66% (n = 33) and 62% (n = 31) after 5 and 7 years following steroid refractory renal allograft rejection. Graft survival within the control cohort was 73% after 5 years and 69% after 7 years. Creatinine clearance increased from 20 +/- 15 ml/min/1.73 m2 at the start of tacrolimus therapy to 37 +/- 29 ml/min/1.73 m2 and to 32 +/- 26 ml/min/1.73 m2 after 5 and 7 years. OKT3 treatment predicted successful rescue therapy (p = 0.005 and p = 0.04 after 5 and 7 years).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate a reasonable graft survival in steroid refractory renal allograft rejection using tacrolimus. OKT3 treatment in addition to tacrolimus therapy may be beneficial for long-term allograft survival.

Removal of therapeutic anti-lymphocyte antibodies from human sera prior to anti-human leukocyte antibody testing

Both monoclonal (e.g. Orthoclone (OKT3), rituximab) and polyclonal (e.g. ATGAM, Thymoglobulin (Thymo)) anti-lymphocyte Abs (ALAs) are used extensively in organ transplantation for immunosuppression induction, desensitization, and treatment of acute rejection. ALAs often interfere with post transplant immunologic monitoring. We describe a method that uses magnetic beads to selectively remove ALAs from patient serum. Rabbit anti-mouse Fc-specific (180 mug), or rabbit anti-mouse Fab-specific (180 microg), or rabbit anti-horse heavy and light chain-specific and rabbit anti-horse F(ab')2 (200 microg) (Jackson Immunoresearch) was adsorbed to 6.7 x 10(8) Dynabeads M-280 conjugated with sheep anti-rabbit IgG (Dynal Biotech). Fifty microliters of normal human serum (NHS) with 2 microg/ml of OKT3 or 100 microg/ml ATGAM, Thymo, or rituximab were incubated with conjugated beads for several incubations. NHS containing ALAs before and after treatment by the protocol were incubated with human lymphocytes and labeled with FITC-antibody to immunoglobulin of the species used to produce the particular ALA. Residual ALA was determined using flow cytometry. Average median channel for serum with or without ALA was 11.1 and 0.120, respectively for OKT3; 64.4 and 0.344 for ATGAM; 108.5 and 0.200 for Thymo; and 1022.5 and 11.4 for rituximab. Treatment lowered the median channel for serum with OKT3 to 0.103, 0.309 for ATGAM, 0.199 for Thymo, and 12.1 for rituximab. ALAs can be effectively removed from serum by the use of magnetic beads conjugated with Ab specific for ALA thereby permitting immunologic monitoring without interference.