Long-term exposure to belatacept in recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys

Fine-tuning tumor- and allo-immunity: advances in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in kidney transplant recipients

Cancer is a common complication after kidney transplantation. Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) have a 2- to 4-fold higher risk of developing cancer compared to the general population and post-transplant malignancy is the third most common cause of death in KTR. Moreover, it is well known that certain cancer types are overrepresented after transplantation, especially non-melanoma skin cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer, with remarkable survival benefit in a subgroup of patients. ICI are monoclonal antibodies that block the binding of specific co-inhibitory signaling molecules. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and its ligand programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) are the main targets of ICI. Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) have been excluded from clinical trials owing to concerns about tumor response, allo-immunity, and risk of transplant rejection. Indeed, graft rejection has been estimated as high as 48% and represents an emerging problem. The underlying mechanisms of organ rejection in the context of treatment with ICI are poorly understood. The search for restricted antitumoral responses without graft rejection is of paramount importance. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the use of ICI in KTR, the potential mechanisms involved in kidney graft rejection during ICI treatment, potential biomarkers of rejection, and how to deal with rejection in clinical practice.

Analysis of risk factors and prognosis of diarrhea after renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

Diarrhea is a prevalent complication after renal transplantation.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk factors for diarrhea after renal transplantation, evaluate their combined predictive values, and analyze the prognosis.

METHODS

Clinical data of patients who underwent allogeneic renal transplantation in the Second People's Hospital of Shanxi Province from January 2019 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, cases were screened and grouped, independent risk factors for diarrhea after renal transplantation were analyzed by univariate analysis and multivariate analysis, and their predictive value was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The survival time of recipient grafts in diarrhea and non-diarrhea groups were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test.

RESULTS

We included 166 recipients in the study and the incidence of diarrhea was 25.9%; univariate and logistic regression multivariate analyses revealed that independent risk factors for diarrhea in recipients were that the type of renal transplant donor was DCD (donation after circulatory death), immunity induction was onducted with basiliximab + antithymocyte globulin (ATG), and ATG alone, the type of mycophenolic acid (MPA) used was mycophenolate mofetil capsules, and delayed graft function (DGF) occurred after transplantation. The ROC curve indicated that the combination of the four factors had good accuracy in predicting the occurrence of diarrhea in recipients. The graft survival rate two years after the operation in the diarrhea group was significantly lower than that in the non-diarrhea group.

CONCLUSION

Diarrhea affected the two-year survival rate of the graft. The type of donor, immunity induction scheme, and the type of MPA and DGF were independent risk factors for diarrhea in recipients, and the combination of the four factors had good prognostic prediction value.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Chimerism and tolerance: past, present and future strategies to prolong renal allograft survival

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Immunological factors are a major cause of kidney allograft loss. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) have improved short-term kidney allograft survival; however, they in turn contribute to long-term kidney allograft loss from chronic CNI nephrotoxicity. Tolerance induction in transplantation can avoid the long-term adverse effects of immunosuppressive medications. This review aims to critically discuss recent efforts in inducing transplantation tolerance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Tolerance induction mediated by chimerism has shown some promise in minimizing or even complete withdrawal of immunosuppressive treatments in kidney allograft recipients. There has been a number of approaches as varied as the number of centres conducting these trials. However, they can be grouped into those mediated by transient microchimerism and those facilitated by more stable macro or full donor chimerism. The success rates in terms of long-term drug-free graft survival has been limited in microchimerism-mediated tolerance induction approaches. Mixed macrochimerism of less than 50% donor may be unstable with mostly the recipient's native immune system overpowering the donor chimeric status.Tolerance induction leading to chimerism has been limited to living donor kidney transplantation and additional long-term outcomes are required. Furthermore, immune monitoring after tolerance induction has faced a limitation in studying due to a lack of sufficient study participants and appropriate study controls.

SUMMARY

Tolerance induction is one of several strategies used to prolong kidney allograft survival, but it has not been routinely utilized in clinical practice. However, future applications from the trials to clinical practice remain limited to living donor kidney transplantation. Once further data regarding tolerance inductions exist and practicality becomes widely accepted, tolerance induction may shift the paradigm in the field of kidney transplantation to achieve the best possible outcome of 'One Organ for Life'.

Induction and maintenance immunosuppression in pediatric kidney transplantation-Advances and controversies

Advances in immunosuppression have improved graft survival in pediatric kidney transplant recipients; however, treatment-related toxicities need to be balanced against the possibility of graft rejection. Several immunosuppressive agents are available for use in transplant recipients; however, the optimal combinations of agents remain unclear, resulting in variations in institutional protocols. Lymphocyte-depleting antibodies, specifically ATG, are the most common induction agent used for pediatric kidney transplantation in the US. Basiliximab may be used for induction in immunologically low-risk children; however, pediatric data are scarce. CNIs and antiproliferative agents (mostly Tac and mycophenolate in recent years) constitute the backbone of maintenance immunosuppression. Steroid-avoidance maintenance regimens remain controversial. Belatacept and mTOR inhibitors are used in children under specific circumstances such as non-adherence or CNI toxicity. This article reviews the indications, mechanism of action, efficacy, dosing, and side effect profiles of various immunosuppressive agents available for pediatric kidney transplantation.

Optimization of de novo belatacept-based immunosuppression administered to renal transplant recipients

Kidney transplant recipients administered belatacept-based maintenance immunosuppression present with a more favorable metabolic profile, reduced incidence of de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and improved renal function and long-term patient/graft survival relative to individuals receiving calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based immunosuppression. However, the rates and severity of acute rejection (AR) are greater with the approved belatacept-based regimen than with CNI-based immunosuppression. Although these early co-stimulation blockade-resistant rejections are typically steroid sensitive, the higher rate of cellular AR has led many transplant centers to adopt immunosuppressive regimens that differ from the approved label. This article summarizes the available data on these alternative de novo belatacept-based maintenance regimens. Steroid-sparing, belatacept-based immunosuppression (following T cell-depleting induction therapy) has been shown to yield AR rates comparable to those seen with CNI-based regimens. Concomitant treatment with belatacept plus a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi; sirolimus or everolimus) has yielded AR rates ranging from 0 to 4%. Because the optimal induction agent and number of induction doses; blood levels of mTORi; and dose, duration, and use of corticosteroids have yet to be determined, larger prospective clinical trials are needed to establish the optimal alternative belatacept-based regimen for minimizing early cellular AR occurrence.

Combined Immunotherapy With Belatacept and BTLA Overexpression Attenuates Acute Rejection Following Kidney Transplantation

Background

Costimulatory blockade provides new therapeutic opportunities for ensuring the long-term survival of kidney grafts. The adoption of the novel immunosuppressant Belatacept has been limited, partly due to concerns regarding higher rates and grades of acute rejection in clinical trials. In this study, we hypothesized that a combined therapy, Belatacept combined with BTLA overexpression, may effectively attenuate acute rejection after kidney transplantation.

Materials and Methods

The rat kidney transplantation model was used to investigate graft rejection in single and combined therapy. Graft function was analyzed by detecting serum creatinine. Pathological staining was used to observe histological changes in grafts. The expression of T cells was observed by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. In vitro, we constructed an antigen-stimulated immune response by mixed lymphocyte culture, treated with or without Belatacept and BTLA-overexpression adenovirus, to observe the proliferation of receptor cells and the expression of cytokines. In addition, western blot and qRT-PCR analyses were performed to evaluate the expression of CTLA-4 and BTLA at various time points during the immune response.

Results

In rat models, combined therapy reduced the serum creatinine levels and prolonged graft survival compared to single therapy and control groups. Mixed acute rejection was shown in the allogeneic group and inhibited by combination treatment. Belatacept reduced the production of DSA and the deposition of C4d in grafts. Belatacept combined with BTLA overexpression downregulated the secretion of IL-2 and IFN-γ, as well as increasing IL-4 and IL-10 expression. We also found that Belatacept combined with BTLA overexpression inhibited the proliferation of spleen lymphocytes. The duration of the elevated expression levels of CTLA-4 and BTLA differentially affected the immune response.

Conclusion

Belatacept combined with BTLA overexpression attenuated acute rejection after kidney transplantation and prolonged kidney graft survival, which suggests a new approach for the optimization of early immunosuppression after kidney transplantation.

Conversion From Calcineurin Inhibitors to Belatacept in HLA-sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients With Low-level Donor-specific Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Belatacept could be the treatment of choice in renal-transplant recipients with renal dysfunction attributed to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity. Few studies have described its use in patients with donor-specific antibody (DSA).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated conversion from CNIs to belatacept in 29 human leukocyte antigen-immunized renal-transplant recipients. Data about acute rejection, DSA, and renal function were collected. These patients were compared with 42 nonimmunized patients treated with belatacept.

RESULTS

Patients were converted from CNIs to belatacept a median of 444 days (interquartile range, 85-1200) after transplantation and were followed up after belatacept conversion, for a median of 308 days (interquartile range, 125-511). At conversion, 16 patients had DSA. Nineteen DSA were observed in these 16 patients, of which 11/19 were <1000 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), 7/19 were between 1000 and 3000 MFI, and one was >3000 MFI. At last follow-up, preexisting DSA had decreased or stabilized. Seven patients still had DSA with a mean MFI of 1298 ± 930 at the last follow-up. No patient developed a de novo DSA in the DSA-positive group. In the nonimmunized group, one patient developed de novo DSA (A24-MFI 970; biopsy for cause did not show biopsy-proven acute rejection or microinflammation score). After belatacept conversion, one antibody-mediated rejection was diagnosed. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate improved from 31.7 ± 14.2 mL/min/1.73 m to 40.7 ± 12.3 mL/min/1.73 m (P < 0.0001) at 12 months after conversion. We did not find any significant difference between groups in terms of renal function, proteinuria, or biopsy-proven acute rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

We report on a safe conversion to belatacept in human leukocyte antigen-immunized patients with low DSA levels.

Belatacept in Solid Organ Transplant: Review of Current Literature Across Transplant Types

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) have been the backbone immunosuppressant for solid organ transplant recipients for decades. Long-term use of CNIs unfortunately is associated with multiple toxicities, with the biggest concern being CNI-induced nephrotoxicity. Belatacept is a novel agent approved for maintenance immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients. In the kidney transplant literature, it has shown promise as being an alternative agent by preserving renal function and having a minimal adverse effect profile. There are emerging studies of its use in other organ groups, particularly liver transplantation, as well as using with other alternative immunosuppressive strategies. The purpose of this review is to analyze the current literature of belatacept use in solid organ transplantation and discuss its use in current practice.

Belatacept for maintenance immunosuppression in cardiothoracic transplantation: The potential frontier

Current immunosuppressive regimens with calcineurin inhibitors have improved the management of patients after transplantation. However, their adverse effects are linked to increased morbidity and limit the long-term survival of heart and lung transplant recipients. Belatacept, a costimulation inhibitor interfering with the interaction between CD28 on T cells and the B7 ligands on antigen presenting cells, has shown success and is currently approved for use in renal transplant recipients. Furthermore, it lacks many of the cardiovascular, metabolic, neurologic, and renal adverse of effects of calcineurin inhibitors that have the largest impact on long-term survival in cardiothoracic transplant. Additionally, it requires no therapeutic drug monitoring and is only administered once a month. Limitations to belatacept use have been observed that must be considered when comparing immunosuppression options. Despite this, maintenance immunosuppression with belatacept has the potential to improve outcomes in cardiothoracic transplant recipients, as it has with kidney transplant recipients. However, no large clinical trials investigating belatacept for maintenance immunosuppression in heart and lung transplant recipients exist. There is a large need for focused research of belatacept in cardiothoracic transplantation. Belatacept is a viable treatment option for maintenance immunosuppression, and it is reasonable to pursue more evidence in cardiothoracic transplant recipients.

Posttransplant reduction in preexisting donor-specific antibody levels after belatacept- versus cyclosporine-based immunosuppression: Post hoc analyses of BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT

BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT were phase III studies of cytotoxic T-cell crossmatch-negative kidney transplant recipients randomized to belatacept more intense (MI)-based, belatacept less intense (LI)-based, or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. Following study completion, presence/absence of HLA-specific antibodies was determined centrally via solid-phase flow cytometry screening. Stored sera from anti-HLA-positive patients were further tested with a single-antigen bead assay to determine antibody specificities, presence/absence of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of any DSAs present. The effect of belatacept-based and cyclosporine-based immunosuppression on MFI was explored post hoc in patients with preexisting DSAs enrolled to BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT. In BENEFIT, preexisting DSAs were detected in 4.6%, 4.9%, and 6.3% of belatacept MI-treated, belatacept LI-treated, and cyclosporine-treated patients, respectively. The corresponding values in BENEFIT-EXT were 6.0%, 5.7%, and 9.2%. In both studies, most preexisting DSAs were of class I specificity. Over the first 24 months posttransplant, a greater proportion of preexisting DSAs in belatacept-treated versus cyclosporine-treated patients exhibited decreases or no change in MFI. MFI decline was more apparent with belatacept MI-based versus belatacept LI-based immunosuppression in both studies and more pronounced in BENEFIT-EXT versus BENEFIT. Although derived post hoc, these data suggest that belatacept-based immunosuppression decreases preexisting DSAs more effectively than cyclosporine-based immunosuppression.

De novo donor-specific antibodies in belatacept-treated vs cyclosporine-treated kidney-transplant recipients: Post hoc analyses of the randomized phase III BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT studies

Donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) are associated with an increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection and graft failure. In BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT, kidney-transplant recipients were randomized to receive belatacept more intense (MI)-based, belatacept less intense (LI)-based, or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression for up to 7 years (84 months). The presence/absence of HLA-specific antibodies was determined at baseline, at months 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 84, and at the time of clinically suspected episodes of acute rejection, using solid-phase flow-cytometry screening. Samples from anti-HLA-positive patients were further tested with a single-antigen bead assay to determine antibody specificities, presence/absence of DSAs, and mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of any DSAs present. In BENEFIT, de novo DSAs developed in 1.4%, 3.5%, and 12.1% of belatacept MI-treated, belatacept LI-treated, and cyclosporine-treated patients, respectively. The corresponding values in BENEFIT-EXT were 3.8%, 1.1%, and 11.2%. Per Kaplan-Meier analysis, de novo DSA incidence was significantly lower in belatacept-treated vs cyclosporine-treated patients over 7 years in both studies (P < .01). In patients who developed de novo DSAs, belatacept-based immunosuppression was associated with numerically lower MFI vs cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. Although derived post hoc, these data suggest that belatacept-based immunosuppression suppresses de novo DSA development more effectively than cyclosporine-based immunosuppression.

Outcomes at 7 years post-transplant in black vs nonblack kidney transplant recipients administered belatacept or cyclosporine in BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT

Clinical outcomes are generally worse for black vs nonblack renal allograft recipients. In BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT, recipients were randomized to belatacept more intense-based, belatacept less intense-based, or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. At year 7, belatacept was associated with superior graft survival vs cyclosporine in BENEFIT (recipients of living or standard criteria deceased donor kidneys); belatacept was associated with similar graft survival vs cyclosporine in BENEFIT-EXT (recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys). In both studies, renal function was superior for belatacept-treated vs cyclosporine-treated patients. Seven-year outcomes were examined by race post hoc in each study. The effect of race and treatment on time to death or graft loss was compared using Cox regression. The interaction between treatment and race was also considered. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated from months 1 to 84 using a repeated-measures model. In total, 8.3% (55/666) and 13.1% (71/543) of patients in BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT, respectively, were black. Time to death or graft loss was similar in blacks and nonblacks. For both subgroups, estimated mean GFR increased over 7 years for belatacept, but declined for cyclosporine. Outcomes were similar in belatacept-treated black and nonblack patients. Due to the small number of black patients, these results must be interpreted with caution.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.

OBJECTIVES

To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.

FUTURE WORK

High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.

CONCLUSION

Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

[Focusing on kidney transplantation in the elderly]

Due to the increase in life expectancy and the ageing of end-stage renal disease patients, the number of patients older than 65 years receiving a kidney transplant has been continuously growing over the last fifteen years. The benefits of renal transplantation compared to dialysis in terms of survival and quality of life have been shown in selected recipients over 65, or 70 years. However, the age remains the main limiting factor for the access to the waiting list, and the reluctance of the clinicians can be explained by the multiple comorbidities of these candidates, their limited life expectancy or the shortage of grafts. The challenge is to select the candidates who can benefit from renal transplantation, thanks to rigorous cardiovascular and neoplastic evaluation before enrolment and by taking into account the specific characteristics of elderly patients. The living donor appears to be the ideal option for elderly recipients, the alternative being the extended criteria donor, allowing waiting times to be limited. The choice of immunosuppressive therapy is also crucial in these patients at high risk of infectious and cardiovascular complications in whom the occurrence of acute rejection can have severe consequences. There are currently no specific recommendations for immunosuppression in elderly recipients, and we would need large-scale randomized studies to improve the prognosis of renal transplantation in this population.

Lessons Learned: Early Termination of a Randomized Trial of Calcineurin Inhibitor and Corticosteroid Avoidance Using Belatacept

The intent of this National Institutes of Health-sponsored study was to compare a belatacept-based immunosuppressive regimen with a maintenance regimen of tacrolimus and mycophenolate. Nineteen primary, Epstein-Barr virus-immune renal transplant recipients with a negative cross-match were randomized to one of three groups. All patient groups received perioperative steroids and maintenance mycophenolate mofetil. Patients in groups 1 and 2 were induced with alemtuzumab and maintained on tacrolimus or belatacept, respectively. Patients in group 3 were induced with basiliximab, received 3 mo of tacrolimus, and maintained on belatacept. There was one death with a functioning allograft due to endocarditis (group 1). There were three graft losses due to vascular thrombosis (all group 2) and one graft loss due to glomerular disease (group 1). Biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection was more frequent in the belatacept-treated groups, with 10 treated episodes in seven participants compared with one episode in group 1; however, estimated GFR was similar between groups at week 52. There were no episodes of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder or opportunistic infections in any group. Protocol enrollment was halted prematurely because of a high rate of serious adverse events. Such negative outcomes pose challenges to clinical investigators, who ultimately must weigh the risks and benefits in randomized trials.

Late conversion from tacrolimus to a belatacept-based immuno-suppression regime in kidney transplant recipients improves renal function, acid-base derangement and mineral-bone metabolism

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-induced nephrotoxicity and chronic graft dysfunction with deteriorating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are common problems of kidney transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to analyze the role of belatacept as a rescue therapy in these patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational study we investigated 20 patients (10 females, 10 males) who were switched from a CNI (tacrolimus) to a belatacept-based immunosuppression because of CNI intolerance or marginal transplant function. Patient follow-up was 12 months.

RESULTS

Patients were converted to belatacept in mean 28.8 months after transplantation. Reasons for conversion were CNI intolerance (14 patients) or marginal transplant function (6 patients). Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) before conversion was 22.2 ± 9.4 ml/min at baseline and improved significantly to 28.3 ± 10.1 ml/min at 4 weeks and to 32.1 ± 12.6 ml/min at 12 months after conversion. Serum bicarbonate significantly increased from 24.4 ± 3.2 mmol/l at baseline to 28.7 ± 2.6 mmol/l after 12 months. Conversion to belatacept decreased parathyroid hormone and phosphate concentrations significantly, whereas albumin levels significantly increased. In 6 cases an acute rejection preceded clinically relevant CNI toxicity; only two patients suffered from an acute rejection after conversion. Belatacept was well tolerated and there was no increase in infectious or malignant side effects.

CONCLUSION

A late conversion from a tacrolimus-based immunosuppression to belatacept is safe, effective and significantly improves renal function in kidney transplant recipients. Additionally, the conversion to belatacept has a beneficial impact on acid-base balance, mineral-bone and protein metabolism, independently of eGFR.

Strategies for an Expanded Use of Kidneys From Elderly Donors

The old-for-old allocation policy used for kidney transplantation (KT) has confirmed the survival benefit compared to remaining listed on dialysis. Shortage of standard donors has stimulated the development of strategies aimed to expand acceptance criteria, particularly of kidneys from elderly donors. We have systematically reviewed the literature on those different strategies. In addition to the review of outcomes of expanded criteria donor or advanced age kidneys, we assessed the value of the Kidney Donor Profile Index policy, preimplantation biopsy, dual KT, machine perfusion and special immunosuppressive protocols. Survival and functional outcomes achieved with expanded criteria donor, high Kidney Donor Profile Index or advanced age kidneys are poorer than those with standard ones. Outcomes using advanced age brain-dead or cardiac-dead donor kidneys are similar. Preimplantation biopsies and related scores have been useful to predict function, but their applicability to transplant or refuse a kidney graft has probably been overestimated. Machine perfusion techniques have decreased delayed graft function and could improve graft survival. Investing 2 kidneys in 1 recipient does not make sense when a single KT would be enough, particularly in elderly recipients. Tailored immunosuppression when transplanting an old kidney may be useful, but no formal trials are available.Old donors constitute an enormous source of useful kidneys, but their retrieval in many countries is infrequent. The assumption of limited but precious functional expectancy for an old kidney and substantial reduction of discard rates should be generalized to mitigate these limitations.

Two Decades of Tacrolimus in Renal Transplant: Basic Science and Clinical Evidences

Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, has been the cornerstone of immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplant over 2 decades. This has significantly improved the outcomes of renal transplant, including reduction of acute rejection episodes, improvement of renal function and graft survival, and reduction of some of the adverse effects associated with cyclosporine. However, use of tacrolimus is associated with a number of undesirable effects, such as nephrotoxicity, posttransplant diabetes mellitus, neurotoxicity, and cosmetic and electrolyte disturbances. To alleviate these effects, several strategies have been adopted to minimize or eliminate tacrolimus from maintenance regimens of immunosuppression, with some success. This review focuses on advancements in the understanding of the basic science related to tacrolimus and the clinical evidences that have examined the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in renal transplant over the past 2 decades and highlights the future directions.

Long-Term Outcomes in Belatacept- Versus Cyclosporine-Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT-EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study

In the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-Line Immunosuppression Trial-Extended Criteria Donors (BENEFIT-EXT), extended criteria donor kidney recipients were randomized to receive belatacept-based (more intense [MI] or less intense [LI]) or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. In prior analyses, belatacept was associated with significantly better renal function compared with cyclosporine. In this prospective analysis of the intent-to-treat population, efficacy and safety were compared across regimens at 7 years after transplant. Overall, 128 of 184 belatacept MI-treated, 138 of 175 belatacept LI-treated and 108 of 184 cyclosporine-treated patients contributed data to these analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) comparing time to death or graft loss were 0.915 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.625-1.339; p = 0.65) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.927 (95% CI 0.634-1.356; p = 0.70) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) plus or minus standard error at 7 years was 53.9 ± 1.9, 54.2 ± 1.9, and 35.3 ± 2.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² for belatacept MI, belatacept LI and cyclosporine, respectively (p < 0.001 for overall treatment effect). HRs comparing freedom from death, graft loss or eGFR <20 mL/min per 1.73 m² were 0.754 (95% CI 0.536-1.061; p = 0.10) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.706 (95% CI 0.499-0.998; p = 0.05) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Acute rejection rates and safety profiles of belatacept- and cyclosporine-based treatment were similar. De novo donor-specific antibody incidence was lower for belatacept (p ≤ 0.0001). Relative to cyclosporine, belatacept was associated with similar death and graft loss and improved renal function at 7 years after transplant and had a safety profile consistent with previous reports.

Experience with belatacept rescue therapy in kidney transplant recipients

In kidney transplant recipients with chronic graft dysfunction, long-term immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) or mTOR inhibitors (mTORi) can be challenging due to adverse effects, such as nephrotoxicity and proteinuria. Seventy-nine kidney transplant recipients treated with CNI-based or mTORi-based maintenance immunosuppression who had CNI-induced nephrotoxicity or severe adverse events were switched to belatacept. Mean time from transplantation to belatacept conversion was 69.0 months. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ± standard deviation at baseline was 26.1 ± 15.0 ml/min/1.73 m² , increasing to 34.0 ± 15.2 ml/min/1.73 m² at 12 months postconversion (P < 0.0005). Renal function improvements were also seen in patients with low eGFR (<25 ml/min/1.73 m² ) or high proteinuria (>500 mg/l) at conversion. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for patient and graft survival at 12 months were 95.0% and 85.6%, respectively. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 7.9%. One case of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder occurred at 17 months postconversion. For comparison, a historical control group of 41 patients converted to mTORi-based immunosuppression because of biopsy-confirmed CNI-induced toxicity was examined; eGFR increased from 27.6 ± 7.2 ml/min/1.73 m² at baseline to 31.1 ± 11.9 ml/min/1.73 m² at 12 months (P = 0.018). Belatacept-based immunosuppression may be an alternative regimen for kidney transplant recipients with CNI- or mTORi-induced toxicity.

Effect of an Early Switch to Belatacept Among Calcineurin Inhibitor-Intolerant Graft Recipients of Kidneys From Extended-Criteria Donors

Transplant recipients receiving a kidney from an extended-criteria donor (ECD) are exposed to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity, as demonstrated by severe delayed graft function and/or a low GFR. Belatacept is a nonnephrotoxic drug that is indicated as an alternative to CNIs. We reported 25 cases of conversion from a CNI to belatacept due to CNI intolerance within the first 6 mo after transplantation. The mean age of the recipients was 59 years, and 24 of 25 patients received ECD kidneys. At the date of the medication switch, 12 of 25 patients displayed a calculated GFR (cGFR) <15 mL/min, six patients remained on dialysis, and the biopsies showed evidence of acute tubular damage associated with severe vascular or tubulointerstitial chronic lesions. Three patients did not recover renal function, and three patients died during the follow-up period. Among the remaining patients, renal function improved: The cGFR was 18.28 ± 12.3 mL/min before the medication switch compared with 34.9 ± 14.5 mL/min at 1 year after conversion to belatacept (p = 0.002). Tolerance of and compliance with belatacept were good, and only one patient experienced acute rejection. Belatacept is an effective therapy that preserves renal function in kidney transplant patients who are intolerant of CNIs.

Belatacept for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in kidney transplant patients: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Background

Belatacept is a novel immunosuppressive therapy designed to improve clinical outcomes associated with kidney transplant recipients while minimizing use of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs).

Methods

We searched for clinical trials related to administration of belatacept to kidney transplant patients compared to various immunosuppression regimens, as well as for studies that utilized data from belatacept trials to validate new surrogate measures. The purpose of this review is to consolidate the published evidence of belatacept’s effectiveness and safety in renal transplant recipients to better elucidate its place in clinical practice.

Results

Analysis of the results from the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Effi-cacy as First-Line Immunosuppressive Trial (BENEFIT) study, a de novo trial that compared cyclosporine (CsA)-based therapy to belatacept-based therapy in standard criteria donors, found a significant difference in mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 13–15 mL/min/1.73 m² and 23–27 mL/min/1.73 m² at 1 year and 7 years, respectively. The BENEFIT-EXT study was similarly designed with the exception that it included extended criteria donors. Renal function improved significantly for the more intensive belatacept group in all years of the BENEFIT-EXT study; however, it was not significant in the less intensive group until 5 years after transplant. Belatacept regimens resulted in lower blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant compared to CsA-based regimens. Results from conversion of CNIs to belatacept therapy, dual therapy of belatacept with sirolimus, and belatacept with corticosteroid avoidance therapy are also included in this article.

Conclusion

The evidence reviewed in this article suggests that belatacept is an effective alternative in kidney transplant recipients. Compared to CNI-based therapy, belatacept-based therapy results in superior renal function and similar rates of allograft survival. In terms of safety, belatacept was shown to have lower incidence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes; however, incidence of posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder and the cost of belatacept may hinder use of this medication.

A safety evaluation of belatacept for the treatment of kidney transplant

INTRODUCTION

Improving long-term survival in kidney transplantation is one of the main goals in modern immunosuppressive research. Current standard immunosuppression based in a combination of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and antiproliferatives, with or without steroids, has improved short-term graft survival. In the last decade, belatacept has been evaluated as a CNI free option regimen addressing better kidney transplant outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviewed the indications, mechanisms of action, pharmacology and published trials using belatacept in different clinical situations. The main objective was to evaluate the safety of this immunosuppressive drug.

EXPERT OPINION

Kidney transplant patients receiving belatacept demonstrated improvement in renal function, less chronic allograft nephropathy, a more favorable metabolic profile and lower donor-specific antibody formation compared with cyclosporine. Based on the published data and on our personal experience, we have good expectations on belatacept use in the future. If these characteristics will translate in sustained better renal function, less chronic kidney disease-related complications and lower cardiovascular risk, improving patient and graft survival and quality of life, is still to be assessed with longer term follow-up and a larger number of exposed patients.

Belatacept and mediastinal histoplasmosis in a kidney transplant patient

Background: In transplantation immunosuppression enhances the appearance of opportunist infections. An ideal balance between the prevention of rejection, the lowest risk of infections and the highest rates of graft survival is a continuous challenge. Lower doses of immunosuppression may diminish the risk of infections, metabolic and hemodynamic complications or even of malignancy, but may expose patients to episodes of acute rejection. New drugs are being developed to improve graft survival at the lowest risk of side effects. Belatacept has recently been introduced in kidney transplantation to inhibit the co-ligand signal of T cell stimulation. It is a drug with a safe profile, is well-tolerated and appears to improve long-term survival of kidney grafts. However, there may be an increase in opportunistic infections which may be facilitated by T cell depression, as Aspergillus sp., Cryptococcus neoformans or tuberculosis.

Case Presentation: We describe a 59-year-old female who developed fever, clinical wasting and a mediastinal mass 31 months after receiving a living non-related kidney transplant while on belatacept therapy. A mediastinal node biopsy disclosed the presence of Histoplasma capsulatum. Infection successfully resolved after appropriate antifungal treatment.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of Histoplasma capsulatum in a kidney transplanted patient on belatacept therapy

A Rationale for Age-Adapted Immunosuppression in Organ Transplantation

Demographic changes are associated with a steady increase of older patients with end-stage organ failure in need for transplantation. As a result, the majority of transplant recipients are currently older than 50 years, and organs from elderly donors are more frequently used. Nevertheless, the benefit of transplantation in older patients is well recognized, whereas the most frequent causes of death among older recipients are potentially linked to side effects of their immunosuppressants.Immunosenescence is a physiological part of aging linked to higher rates of diabetes, bacterial infections, and malignancies representing the major causes of death in older patients. These age-related changes impact older transplant candidates and may have significant implications for an age-adapted immunosuppression. For instance, immunosenescence is linked to lower rates of acute rejections in older recipients, whereas the engraftment of older organs has been associated with higher rejection rates. Moreover, new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation is more frequent in the elderly, potentially related to corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors.This review presents current knowledge for an age-adapted immunosuppression based on both, experimental and clinical studies in and beyond transplantation. Recommendations of maintenance and induction therapy may help to improve graft function and to design future clinical trials in the elderly.

Belatacept and Long-Term Outcomes in Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

In previous analyses of BENEFIT, a phase 3 study, belatacept-based immunosuppression, as compared with cyclosporine-based immunosuppression, was associated with similar patient and graft survival and significantly improved renal function in kidney-transplant recipients. Here we present the final results from this study.

METHODS

We randomly assigned kidney-transplant recipients to a more-intensive belatacept regimen, a less-intensive belatacept regimen, or a cyclosporine regimen. Efficacy and safety outcomes for all patients who underwent randomization and transplantation were analyzed at year 7 (month 84).

RESULTS

A total of 666 participants were randomly assigned to a study group and underwent transplantation. Of the 660 patients who were treated, 153 of the 219 patients treated with the more-intensive belatacept regimen, 163 of the 226 treated with the less-intensive belatacept regimen, and 131 of the 215 treated with the cyclosporine regimen were followed for the full 84-month period; all available data were used in the analysis. A 43% reduction in the risk of death or graft loss was observed for both the more-intensive and the less-intensive belatacept regimens as compared with the cyclosporine regimen (hazard ratio with the more-intensive regimen, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.95; P=0.02; hazard ratio with the less-intensive regimen, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P=0.02), with equal contributions from the lower rates of death and graft loss. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) increased over the 7-year period with both belatacept regimens but declined with the cyclosporine regimen. The cumulative frequencies of serious adverse events at month 84 were similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven years after transplantation, patient and graft survival and the mean eGFR were significantly higher with belatacept (both the more-intensive regimen and the less-intensive regimen) than with cyclosporine. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256750.).

Pathophysiologic and treatment strategies for cardiovascular disease in end-stage renal disease and kidney transplantations. Cardiol Rev. 2014;23:109-118. [PMID: 25420053 DOI: 10.1097/crd.0000000000000044]

The inextricable link between the heart and the kidneys predestines that significant cardiovascular disease ensues in the face of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). As a point of fact, the leading cause of mortality of patients on dialysis is still from cardiovascular etiologies, albeit differing in particular types of disease from the general population. For example, sudden cardiac death outnumbers coronary artery disease in patients with ESRD, which is the reverse for the general population. In this review, we will focus on the pathophysiology and treatment options of important traditional and nontraditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease in ESRD patients such as hypertension, anemia, vascular calcification, hyperparathyroidism, uremia, and oxidative stress. The evidence of erythropoietin-stimulating agents, phosphate binders, calcimimetics, and dialysis modalities will be presented. We will then discuss how these risk factors may be changed and perhaps exacerbated after renal transplantation. This is largely due to the immunosuppressive agents that are both crucial yet potentially detrimental in the posttransplant state. Calcineurin inhibitors, corticosteroids, and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, the mainstay of transplant immunosuppression, are all known to increase the risks of developing new onset diabetes as well as the metabolic syndrome. Thus, we need to carefully negotiate between patients' cardiovascular profile and their risks of rejection. Finally, we end by considering strategies by which we may minimize cardiovascular disease in the transplant population, as this modality still confers the highest chance of survival in patients with ESRD.

Belatacept prophylaxis against organ rejection in adult kidney-transplant recipients

End-stage renal disease is a major health problem worldwide, with kidney transplantation being the treatment of choice. Calcineurin inhibitors are still the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy. However, they have well-known nephrotoxic affects and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. In contrast, belatacept is a biological immunosuppressive agent that inhibits the T-cell co-stimulation. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency for use in adult kidney-transplant recipients to prevent acute rejection. Developmental studies show that belatacept is as efficient as calcineurin inhibitors at preventing acute rejection. In addition, kidney function is better and cardiovascular risk factors are reduced in patients given belatacept. Herein, the authors review the published evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of belatacept and discuss its potential specific indications.

Kidney transplantation, bioengineering and regeneration: an originally immunology-based discipline destined to transition towards ad hoc organ manufacturing and repair

Kidney transplantation (KT), as a modality of renal replacement therapy (RRT), has been shown to be both economically and functionally superior to dialysis for the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Progress in KT is limited by two major barriers: a) a chronic and burgeoning shortage of transplantable organs and b) the need for chronic immunosuppression following transplantation. Although ground-breaking advances in transplant immunology have improved patient survival and graft durability, a new pathway of innovation is needed in order to overcome current obstacles. Regenerative medicine (RM) holds the potential to shift the paradigm in RRT, through organ bioengineering. Manufactured organs represent a potentially inexhaustible source of transplantable grafts that would bypass the need for immunosuppressive drugs by using autologous cells to repopulate extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffolds. This overview discusses the current status of renal transplantation while reviewing the most promising innovations in RM therapy as applied to RRT.

Minimization vs tailoring: Where do we stand with personalized immunosuppression during renal transplantation in 2015?

The introduction of novel immunosuppressive agents over the last two decades and the improvement of our diagnostic tools for early detection of antibody-mediated injury offer us an opportunity, if not a mandate, to better match the immunosuppression needs of the individual patients with side effects of the therapy. However, immunosuppressive regimens in the majority of programs remain mostly protocol-driven, with relatively little inter-program heterogeneity in certain areas of the world. Emerging data showing different outcomes with a particular immunosuppressive strategy in populations with varying immunological risks underscore a real potential for “personalized medicine” in renal transplantation. Studies demonstrating marked differences in the adverse-effect profiles of individual drugs including the risk for viral infections, malignancy and renal toxicity call for a paradigm shift away from a “one size fits all” approach to an individually tailored immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplant recipients, assisted by both screening for predictors of graft loss and paying close attention to dose or class-related adverse effects. Our paper explores some of the opportunities during the care of these patients. Potential areas of improvements may include: (1) a thorough assessment of immunological and metabolic risk profile of each renal transplant recipient; (2) screening for predictors of graft loss and early signs of antibody-mediated rejection with donor-specific antibodies, protocol biopsies and proteinuria (including close follow up of adverse effects with dose adjustments or conversions as necessary); and (3) increased awareness of the possible link between poor tolerance of a given drug at a given dose and non-adherence with the prescribed regimen. Altogether, these considerations may enable the most effective use of the drugs we already have.

What immunosuppression should be used for old-to-old recipients?

Elderly patients receiving a kidney from old donors (old-to-old) are a growing population of transplant recipients. This population cumulates risks of complications due to the co-morbidities and the immunodeficiency state and the frailty of the recipients together with the kidney senescence of the donors. In this context, the choice of immunosuppression is complicated and must take into account some contradictory principles explaining why no consensus exists today.

Dysglycemia after renal transplantation: Definition, pathogenesis, outcomes and implications for management

New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is major complication following renal transplantation. It commonly develops within 3-6 mo post-transplantation. The development of NODAT is associated with significant increase in risk of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. Other dysglycemic states, such as impaired glucose tolerance are also associated with increasing risk of cardiovascular events. The pathogenesis of these dysglycemic states is complex. Older recipient age is a consistent major risk factor and the impact of calcineurin inhibitors and glucocorticoids has been well described. Glucocorticoids likely cause insulin resistance and calcineurin inhibitors likely cause β-cell toxicity. The impact of transplantation in incretin hormones remains to be clarified. The oral glucose tolerance test remains the best diagnostic test but other tests may be validated as screening tests. Possibly, NODAT can be prevented by administering insulin early in patients identified as high risk for NODAT. Once NODAT has been diagnosed altering immunosuppression may be acceptable, but creates the difficulty of balancing immunological with metabolic risk. With regard to hypoglycemic use, metformin may be the best option. Further research is needed to better understand the pathogenesis, identify high risk patients and to improve management options given the significant increased risk of major cardiovascular events and death.

Does belatacept improve outcomes for kidney transplant recipients? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Belatacept was intended to provide better outcomes for kidney transplant (KT) recipients by allowing minimization/withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and steroids.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult KT comparing belatacept with CNIs. Methodological quality was assessed. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. Pooled analyses found no differences for acute rejection at any time point. Renal function [Calculated glomerular filtration rate (cGFR)] was better with belatacept at 12 and 24 months (MD = 11.7 and 13.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ). New onset diabetes after transplantation was lower with belatacept at 12 months (OR = 0.43). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower at 12 months (MD -7.2 and -3.1 mmHg) as were triglycerides at 12 and 24 months (MD = -32.9 and -41.7 mg/dl). Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were lower with belatacept at 24 months (MD = -19.8 and -10.6 mg/dl). There were no differences for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Limited available data suggest a potential benefit for belatacept by reducing the risk of CNI toxicity, especially renal function, without evidence of increased acute rejection. There were no safety issues apart from a possible risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in Epstein-barr virus-seronegative recipients. Further studies are required to confirm this benefit.

Belatacept in kidney transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2014;19:573-577. [PMID: 25333833 DOI: 10.1097/mot.0000000000000134]

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) play a major role in long-term renal allograft dysfunction because of their nephrotoxic side-effects. Belatacept, a selective costimulation blockade agent, is the first biological agent approved for maintenance immunosuppression in renal transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have shown better preservation of glomerular filtration rate and improved metabolic end points with belatacept when compared with CNIs. More recent studies have shown that belatacept can be an effective first-line immunosuppressive agent with complete avoidance of CNIs and corticosteroids.

SUMMARY

Newer biological agents like belatacept may replace CNIs/corticosteroids in renal transplant recipients, with a benefit of better short-term and long-term renal function, better compliance, and ultimately a possible improvement in long-term renal allograft survival.

The need for minimization strategies: current problems of immunosuppression

New immunosuppressants and the better use of immunosuppressant combination therapy have led to significant improvements in renal allograft outcomes over the last decades. Yet, despite dramatic reduction in rejection rates and improvement in 1-year graft survival, long-term graft attrition rates remained rather constant. Current immunosuppressant combinations are frequently leading to overimmunosuppression and are increasing cardiovascular risk. Importantly, calcineurin inhibitors are nephrotoxic, contribute to cardiovascular risk and chronic allograft dysfunction. Furthermore, immunosuppressant-associated toxicities aggravate immune-mediated nephron injury and side effects lead to nonadherence, an identified important reason for late acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejections. The frequent development of a chronic humoral response indicates rather insufficient immunosuppression of current combinations than simple under-immunosuppression. While there is no evidence that increasing immunosuppressive doses will improve outcomes or reduce de novo HLA-antibody formation, there is clear evidence that adequate minimization strategies will reduce side effect burden. Because of low rejection risk, but frequent side effects, drug minimization is particularly relevant for the many maintenance patients. In summary, new therapeutic strategies need to be developed from adequately powered clinical trials for reduction of the many side effects of immunosuppressants. Such evidence-based and time-dependent immunosuppressive minimization strategies are needed to achieve better long-term outcomes in the future.

Hypertension, living kidney donors, and transplantation: where are we today?

Hypertension is a prevalent problem in kidney transplant recipients that is known to be a "traditional" risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease leading to premature allograft failure and death. Donor, peritransplant, and recipient factors affect hypertension risk. Blood pressure control after transplantation is inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Calcineurin inhibitors, the most commonly used class of immunosuppressives, cause endothelial dysfunction, increase vascular tone, and sodium retention via the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system resulting in systemic hypertension. Steroid withdrawal seems to have little impact on blood pressure control. Newer agents like belatacept appear to be associated with less hypertension. Transplant renal artery stenosis is an important, potentially treatable cause of hypertension. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers mitigate calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity and may be associated with improved estimated GFR. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are not recommended in the first 3 to 6 months given their effects on reduced estimated GFR, anemia, and hyperkalemia. The use of ß-blockers may be associated with improved patient survival, even for patients without cardiovascular disease. Living donation may increase blood pressure by 5 mm Hg or more. Some transplant centers accept Caucasian living donors with well-controlled hypertension on a single agent if they agree to close follow-up.

Recent trials in immunosuppression and their consequences for current therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the scarcity of clinical trials with de-novo immunosuppression has been typical over the last 2 years, several attempts have been made in drug conversion, dosing optimization, and bioequivalence. On the basis of recent clinical and animal studies, future directions of management and treatment are outlined.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies with new tacrolimus formulations showed better bioavailability and lower doses, which might translate into less toxicity. The long-term results of studies with costimulation blockade confirmed their safety and efficacy. Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-free regimens based on mTOR inhibitors were shown to be associated with increased risk of the humoral response. Therefore, ongoing trials are predominantly designed to minimize calcineurin inhibitor dose only. Biologics, such as B-cell-specific agents (bortezomib and rituximab) and complement inhibitors (eculizumab) used to treat antibody-mediated rejection, recurrence of glomerulonephritis, are shifted to more preventive applications. The pretransplant quantification of alloreactive memory/effector T cell response may help to better stratify a patient's immunologic risk and allow for drug minimization.

SUMMARY

Despite clinical trials with innovative protocols with already established agents, tacrolimus-based and induction-based protocols have been shown to be the mainstay of immunosuppressive regimens. In the future, research aims to focus on biomarker-driven immunosuppression and cell therapy approaches.

What's new in clinical solid organ transplantation by 2013

Innovative and exciting advances in the clinical science in solid organ transplantation continuously realize as the results of studies, clinical trials, international conferences, consensus conferences, new technologies and discoveries. This review will address to the full spectrum of news in transplantation, that verified by 2013. The key areas covered are the transplantation activity, with particular regards to the donors, the news for solid organs such as kidney, pancreas, liver, heart and lung, the news in immunosuppressive therapies, the news in the field of tolerance and some of the main complications following transplantation as infections and cancers. The period of time covered by the study starts from the international meetings held in 2012, whose results were published in 2013, up to the 2013 meetings, conferences and consensus published in the first months of 2014. In particular for every organ, the trends in numbers and survival have been reviewed as well as the most relevant problems such as organ preservation, ischemia reperfusion injuries, and rejections with particular regards to the antibody mediated rejection that involves all solid organs. The new drugs and strategies applied in organ transplantation have been divided into new way of using old drugs or strategies and drugs new not yet on the market, but on phase Ito III of clinical studies and trials.

Belatacept-based, ATG-Fresenius-induction regimen for kidney transplant recipients: a proof-of-concept study

Belatacept provides effective immunosuppression while avoiding the nephrotoxicities associated with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs). However, existing belatacept-based regimens still have high rates of acute rejection. We hypothesized that therapy with belatacept, mycophenolic acid (MMA), steroids and induction therapy with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin Fresenius (ATGF), rejection rate could be reduced. Prospective, single center, proof-of-concept study including males and females aged ≥18years, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-seropositive recipients of a first, HLA non-identical, live or deceased donor kidney allograft. Only patients with a calculated panel reactive antibody score of 0% were included. Three donors were positive for Chagas disease. Six of twelve patients had at least one infection and five were readmitted to the hospital for treatment. One patient had a Trypanosoma cruzi infection via the graft treated successfully. Median cold ischemia time for the transplant patients with a deceased donor was 21.5h. Mean serum creatinine levels at 1, 3 and 6months were 1.76±0.59, 1.55±0.60 and 1.49±0.60mg/dl, respectively. Two of twelve patients experienced clinical, biopsy-proven rejection, successfully treated with methylprednisolone. No patient developed post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) or any other malignancy and no patient lost their graft or died during follow-up. The potential of this approach makes it worthy of further investigation.

Belatacept for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Most people who receive a kidney transplant die from either cardiovascular disease or cancer before their transplant fails. The most common reason for someone with a kidney transplant to lose the function of their transplanted kidney necessitating return to dialysis is chronic kidney transplant scarring. Immunosuppressant drugs have side effects that increase risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic kidney transplant scarring. Belatacept may provide sufficient immunosuppression while avoiding unwanted side effects of other immunosuppressant drugs. However, high rates of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) have been reported when belatacept is used in particular kidney transplant recipients at high dosage.

OBJECTIVES

1) Compare the relative efficacy of belatacept versus any other primary immunosuppression regimen for preventing acute rejection, maintaining kidney transplant function, and preventing death. 2) Compare the incidence of several adverse events: PTLD; other malignancies; chronic transplant kidney scarring (IF/TA); infections; change in blood pressure, lipid and blood sugar control. 3) Assess any variation in effects by study, intervention and recipient characteristics, including: differences in pre-transplant Epstein Barr virus serostatus; belatacept dosage; and donor-category (living, standard criteria deceased, or extended criteria deceased).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 1 September 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared belatacept versus any other immunosuppression regimen in kidney transplant recipients were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data for study quality and transplant outcomes and synthesized results using random effects meta-analysis, expressed as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).  Subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression were used to investigate potential heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that compared belatacept and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) that reported data from a total of 1535 kidney transplant recipients. Of the five studies, three (478 participants) compared belatacept and cyclosporin and two (43 recipients) compared belatacept and tacrolimus. Co-interventions included basiliximab (4 studies, 1434 recipients); anti-thymocyte globulin (1 study, 89 recipients); alemtuzumab (1 study, 12 recipients); mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, 5 studies, 1509 recipients); sirolimus (1 study, 26 recipients) and prednisone (5 studies, 1535 recipients).Up to three years following transplant, belatacept and CNI-treated recipients were at similar risk of dying (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.44), losing their kidney transplant and returning to dialysis (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.38), and having an episode of acute rejection (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.86). Belatacept-treated kidney transplant recipients were 28% less likely to have chronic kidney scarring (3 studies, 1360 recipients: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94) and also had better graft function (measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (3 studies 1083 recipients): 10.89 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 4.01 to 17.77; estimated GFR (4 studies, 1083 recipients): MD 9.96 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 3.28 to 16.64) than CNI-treated recipients. Blood pressure was lower (systolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -7.51 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.57 to -4.46; diastolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -3.07 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.83 to -1.31, lipid profile was better (non-HDL (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -12.25 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.93 to -6.57; triglycerides (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -24.09 mg/dL, 95% CI -44.55 to -3.64), and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant was reduced by 39% (4 studies (1049 recipients): RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93) among belatacept-treated versus CNI-treated recipients.Risk of PTLD was similar in belatacept and CNI-treated recipients (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 12.66) and was no different among recipients who received different belatacept dosages (high versus low dosage: ratio of risk ratios (RRR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.80, test of difference = 0.96) or among those who were Epstein Barr virus seronegative compared with those who were seropositive before their kidney transplant (seronegative versus seropositive; RRR 1.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 14.76, test for difference = 0.73).The belatacept dose used (high versus low), type of donor kidney the recipient received (extended versus standard criteria) and whether the kidney transplant recipient received tacrolimus or cyclosporin made no difference to kidney transplant survival, incidence of acute rejection or estimated GFR. Selective outcome reporting meant that data for some key subgroup comparisons were sparse and that estimates of the effect of treatment in these groups of recipients remain imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of any difference in the effectiveness of belatacept and CNI in preventing acute rejection, graft loss and death, but treatment with belatacept is associated with less chronic kidney scarring and better kidney transplant function. Treatment with belatacept is also associated with better blood pressure and lipid profile and a lower incidence of diabetes versus treatment with a CNI. Important side effects (particularly PTLD) remain poorly reported and so the relative benefits and harms of using belatacept remain unclear. Whether short-term advantages of treatment with belatacept are maintained over the medium- to long-term or translate into better cardiovascular outcomes or longer kidney transplant survival with function remains unclear. Longer-term, fully reported and published studies comparing belatacept versus tacrolimus are needed to help clinicians decide which patients might benefit most from using belatacept.