Diagnostics and treatment of a severe humoral rejection after liver transplantation: donor-specific antibodies as a still underestimated cause of graft failure

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.

HLA class II donor specific antibodies are associated with graft cirrhosis after liver transplant independent of the mean fluorescence intensity level

Background

The importance of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) after liver transplantation (LT) for graft and patient survival is an ongoing controversy. So far it has not been elucidated when and in how far DSA are harmful for graft and patient survival. Therefore, we had the aim to investigate the association of DSA with complications after LT.

Methods

Data of 430 LT recipients were collected and statistically analyzed. Detection of HLA antibodies (Ab) was performed by Luminex assay.

Results

DSA were detected in 81 patients (18.8%). These were mainly HLA class II Ab (81.5%). HLA class II Ab show a higher MFI (median: 5.300) compared to HLA class I Ab (median: 2.300). There is no association between MFI levels and development of complications after LT. However, cirrhosis occurred significantly more often in DSA positive patients (18%) than in patients without detectable DSA (9%, P = 0.027). All DSA positive patients with cirrhosis of the graft showed HLA class II antibodies (OR: 3.028; 95% CI: 1.51–6.075; P = 0.002).

Conclusion

Occurrence of HLA class II DSA after LT is associated with graft cirrhosis and may indicate a higher risk to develop graft damage independent on MFI and requires an individualized risk management.

The Effect of Immunosuppression on Coagulation After Liver Transplantation

Everolimus (EVR) is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor commonly used for immunosuppression (IS) after liver transplantation (LT). However, there are concerns about whether mTOR inhibitors may move the hemostatic balance toward a higher likelihood of thrombosis. The present study aimed to investigate potential coagulation disorders after the administration of EVR. We evaluated 54 patients after conversion to an EVR-based IS regimen (n = 26) and compared those patients with patients who were switched to extended-release tacrolimus (TAC) but had never received EVR (n = 28). At baseline and again at 1 month and 6 months after conversion, we measured international normalized ratio, activated partial thromboplastin time, and anticoagulation and fibrinolysis factors, and we performed rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM). Data were analyzed with a Mann-Whitney U test, a repeated-measure analysis of variance, and a Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was set at the level of P ≤ 0.05. Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor, fibrinogen, and factor VIII were significantly higher than baseline levels at 1 month and 6 months after conversion of IS to EVR (P < 0.001); plasma levels of protein C, protein S, and plasminogen also increased significantly (P < 0.001). ROTEM confirmed a significant increase in maximum clot firmness in EXTEM, INTEM, and FIBTEM assays (P < 0.001). In all assays, maximum lysis was significantly lower than baseline levels at 1 month and 6 months after conversion to EVR. Patients converted to IS with extended-release TAC exhibited no significant changes in coagulation variables. Retrospective analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of thromboembolic complications among patients treated with EVR-based IS than among those treated with extended-release TAC (P < 0.01). In conclusion, the administration of EVR after LT seems to modify hemostasis to a procoagulant state. Thrombophilia screening before conversion may determine which patients will benefit from conversion to EVR-based IS.