Randomized double-blind study of standard versus low-dose OKT3 induction therapy in renal allograft recipients

Immune rebalancing by oral immunotherapy: A novel method for getting the immune system back on track

Immune modulating treatments are often associated with immune suppression or an opposing anti-inflammatory paradigm. As such, there is a risk of exposing patients to infections and malignancies. Contrarily, eliciting only mild immune modulation can be insufficient for alleviating immune-mediated damage. Oral immunotherapy is a novel approach that uses the inherent ability of the gut immune system to generate signals that specifically suppress inflammation at affected sites, without inducing generalized immune suppression. Oral immunotherapy is being developed as a method to rebalance systemic immunity and restore balance, getting it back on track, rather than pushing the immune response too much or too little in opposing directions. Here, I review recent preclinical and clinical data examining the technique and describe its primary advantages.

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.

Antibody Agents in Solid Organ Transplantation

Antibody agents play an important role in the pharmacotherapy of solid organ transplantation. These agents can be either monoclonal or polyclonal, derived from an animal source or genetically engineered utilizing human antibody sequences. This reviewpresents basic pharmacology and therapeutic issues related to the antibody preparations utilized in transplantation including equine and rabbit antithymocyte globulins, muromonab-CD3, daclizumab, and basiliximab. The parameters covered for these agents include mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic monitoring strategies, clinical dosing, adverse effects, and clinical trials. The brief overviewof current clinical data related to these agents focuses on kidney transplantation. The use of these very powerful agents in different patient populations needs to be individualized based on certain risks and these data are presented to help in the decision-making process, especially for renal allograft recipients.

A randomized prospective trial of low-dose OKT3 induction therapy to prevent rejection and minimize side effects in recipients of kidney transplants

BACKGROUND

We attempted to minimize the undesired side effects and maximize the benefit of OKT3 induction therapy in renal transplantation.

METHODS

One hundred and one recipients of kidney-only transplants were randomized to three groups. Each received low-dose 2.5-mg OKT3 induction for 7-14 days, but different premedication on days 0, 1, and 2. Group I was given 250 mg i.v. methylprednisolone at 1 and 6 hr, and group II received another 500 mg at 1 hr before initial OKT3. Group III received Atgam 15 mg/kg on day 0 and began OKT3 on day 1. A CD3+ T-cell cut-off of 50/mm3 was used to guide therapy. Maintenance therapy included cyclosporine and steroids for each patient. However, groups I and II were also given mycophenolate mofetil, and group III received azathioprine as a third agent. All rejections were biopsy confirmed and Banff scored.

RESULTS

No differences in demographic or transplant characteristics were noted between groups I, II, and III, and mean follow-up was 25.7 (1-38) months. There was no significant difference in actuarial patient (90%, 91%, 94%) or graft survival (83%, 88%, 84%) at 3 years between the respective groups. Mean creatinine values and infectious complications were similar for each group. No patient experienced acute rejection during induction, and eight patients required dose escalation to sustain suppression of CD3 counts. The incidence of acute rejection at 6 and 12 months was significantly (P=0.004) greater in group III (38.2, 44.1%) than in either group I (15.1, 18.1%) or group II (14.7, 17.6%); relative risk 1.988 (95% CI 1.012-3.906). Formation of anti-OKT3 antibody was significantly (P=0.006) greater in group III (26.5%) than in group I (6%) or group II (2.9%). Group I recipients enjoyed significantly (P=0.001) fewer (2.17) OKT3 side effects on days 0, 1, and 2 than group II (3.03) or group III (2.49), and contained the largest number (61%) of recipients who experienced no side effects. Group I also exhibited the most suppressed profile of OKT3-induced release of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (P=0.006), interferon-gamma (P=NS), and interleukin-6 (P=0.01) on days 0 and 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose 2.5-mg OKT3 with pretreatment of split-dose steroids on days 0, 1, and 2 provides the most effective method for OKT3 induction, which minimizes side effects for most patients. Subsequent maintenance therapy with cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids provides effective rejection prophylaxis without increased complications for up to 3 years. Predepletion of T cells before exposure to OKT3 does not prevent cytokine release.

Correlation between Banff classification, acute renal rejection scores and reversal of rejection

The Banff classification of acute rejection is based on histologic grades and scores for borderline changes, glomerular, vascular, interstitial and tubular lesions. We reviewed 56 episodes of acute rejection occurring in 44 kidney allograft recipients (30 cadaveric and 14 living donor transplants), comparing Banff classification to degree of reversibility of rejection. Rejection reversal was defined as complete if serum creatinine returned < or = 25% of baseline, partial if creatinine was > 25% to < 75% of baseline, and irreversible if creatinine was > or = 75% of baseline or graft loss occurred. Eight biopsies were classified as borderline (SUM score 1.6 +/- 0.5), 14 grade I (SUM score 3.3 +/- 0.4), 19 grade II (SUM score 4.2 +/- 0.3), and 15 grade III (SUM score 8.5 +/- 0.4). SUM distinguished borderline and grade III rejections, but not grades I and II. Clinically, grade and SUM score correlated with rejection reversal. Complete reversal of rejection occurred in 93% of patients with grade I rejection, while 47% of patients with grade III had irreversible rejection. The mean SUM for complete reversal was 3.9 +/- 0.34 and was different from SUM of partial (6.0 +/- 0.86) and irreversible (8.5 +/- 0.93), P < 0.006. Meanwhile, vascular scores were similar for rejections with complete (0.9 +/- 0.2) or partial (1.0 +/- 0.4) reversal, but significantly higher in those with irreversible rejection (3.0 +/- 0.4, P < 0.000). Likewise, mean scores for tubulitis and interstitial inflammation were significantly higher for irreversible rejection. Resolution of rejection by steroids was correlated to low vascular score (steroid sensitive 0.65 +/- 0.25 vs. steroid resistant 1.42 +/- 0.18, P < 0.01), and low SUM score (steroid sensitive 3.7 +/- 0.5 vs. steroid resistant 5.22 +/- 0.43, P < 0.04). Neither scores for tubulitis nor interstitial cellular inflammation were predictive of steroid sensitivity. These data demonstrate that Banff scoring has clinical relevance in predicting rejection reversal and has implications to first-line therapy of rejection episodes.

The use of therapeutic drug monitoring to optimise immunosuppressive therapy

Most experience of the therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive agents has been acquired in the field of solid organ transplantation; however, agents such as cyclosporin (cyclosporin A) are being increasingly utilised for the management of autoimmune diseases. Cyclosporin is the most widely studied immunosuppressant, but in spite of this many controversies still exist as to the optimum strategy for monitoring this drug. Owing to its widely variable pharmacokinetics and metabolism, and the absence of a simple method to measure therapeutic effectiveness, many factors should be considered. In most circumstances, measuring whole blood through concentrations of cyclosporin with a specific assay methodology is warranted. In addition, knowledge of other factors that may alter the pharmacokinetics (such as liver function, concomitant food or medications, gastrointestinal status, and time since transplantation) should be taken into account so that therapy can be appropriately adjusted. Other methods of monitoring have been investigated, such as AUC (area under the concentration-time curve) monitoring and immunological monitoring. However, further refinement of these techniques and greater experience with their efficacy must be accumulated before their role in the monitoring of cyclosporin can be defined. Tacrolimus, like cyclosporin, shares many of the difficulties in monitoring for efficacy and toxicity due largely to the variable pharmacokinetics; similarly to cyclosporin, whole blood through concentration monitoring should be utilised in combination with knowledge of the factors that may affect the pharmacokinetics. Muromonab CD3 (OKT3) is a monoclonal antibody used for the treatment and prophylaxis of acute allograft rejection. Several immunological monitoring techniques have been investigated for this agent. Monitoring CD3+ levels can assist clinicians in determining therapeutic efficacy, while measuring antimuromonab CD3 antibody titres can help determine if xenosensitisation has occurred, causing therapeutic ineffectiveness. The clinical monitoring of azathioprine, one of the first immunosuppressive agents used in transplantation, has historically been limited to monitoring complete blood counts for bone marrow suppression. However, newer techniques measuring intracellular DNA nucleotides appear to be promising. The new immunosuppressants on the horizon include mycophenolate mofetil and rapamycin. The clinical experience with therapeutic drug monitoring of these 2 compounds is scant in the literature; however, both agents have demonstrated efficacy in preventing or treating allograft rejection while maintaining a relatively well tolerated toxicity profile in recent clinical trials. Routine monitoring does not appear to be warranted for immunosuppressive therapy in autoimmune diseases.