Novel rescue therapy for C4d-positive acute humoral renal allograft rejection

Efficacy of Combined Desensitization Therapy Based on Protein A Immunoadsorption on Anti-human Leukocyte Antigen Antibodies in Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective Study

Background and objectives

Protein A immunoadsorption (PA-IA) therapy is an immunoglobulin selective apheresis for pre-transplantation desensitization therapy and treatment of post-transplantation antibody-mediated rejection. There is no unified protocol for the timing of PA-IA therapy or its combination with other drug therapy. This study aimed to investigate and analyze the clearance effects of desensitization therapy on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies to provide a reference for the formulation of clinical desensitization therapy regimens.

Materials and methods

Overall, 27 kidney transplant recipients who received preoperative/postoperative desensitization therapy based on PA-IA therapy in combination with drug therapy were enrolled. The pre-treatment mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of 1324 human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody specificities (MFI >2000) and the post-treatment MFI of the corresponding antibody specificities (after one, four, seven, and 10 sessions) were recorded to analyze the changes in antibody level reduction for the different antibody classes and MFI ranges.

Results

After 10 sessions of PA-IA therapy, the MFI of class I antibodies decreased from 8298.56 to 3196.15 (reduction of 66.80%), while the MFI of class II antibodies decreased from 13,521.09 to 2773.29 (reduction of 71.14%). The pre-treatment level of class II antibodies was significantly higher than that of class I antibodies (p<0.001), whereas the post-treatment levels of class I and II antibodies were comparable (p>0.05). The clearance effects of PA-IA therapy were greater for strongly positive (MFI>10,000) class II antibodies than for strongly positive class I antibodies, showing a reduction of 62.59% (25.17% to 91.04%) and 45.13% (32.70% to 73.94%), respectively (p=0.015).

Conclusions

We confirmed the removal efficacy of PA-IA for HLA antibodies. The removal efficacy of class II antibodies on PA-IA is not inferior to that of class I. Under an adequate number of treatment sessions, the clearance effect of PA-IA therapy for strongly positive class II antibodies may be greater than that for strongly positive class I antibodies.

Plasma exchange for kidney disease: what is the best evidence?

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been used as adjunctive therapy for various kidney diseases dating back to the 1970s. In many cases, support for TPE was on mechanistic grounds given the potential to remove unwanted large molecular-weight substances such as autoantibodies, immune complexes, myeloma light chains, and cryoglobulins. More recently, growing evidence from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and prospective studies has provided insights into more rational use of this therapy. This report describes the role of TPE for the 6 most common kidney indications in the 2013 Canadian Apheresis Group (CAG) registry and the evidence that underpins current recommendations and practice. These kidney indications include thrombotic microangiopathy, antiglomerular basement membrane disease, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis, cryoglobulinemia, recurrence of focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis in the kidney allograft, and kidney transplantation.

Management of antibody-mediated rejection in transplantation

Despite intensive traditional immunosuppressive therapy, rates of graft loss have approximated 15% to 20% at 1 year following antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in solid organ transplant recipients. Therefore, the development of antihumoral therapies that provide prompt elimination of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies and improve allograft survival is an important goal. Traditional treatment modalities for AMR deplete B-cell populations but not the cell at the source of antibody production, the mature plasma cell. Plasma cell-targeted therapies using proteasome inhibition is a novel approach to treating AMR. This review discusses current and emerging treatment modalities used for AMR.

Therapeutic apheresis for renal disorders

This review summarizes the clinical evidence and practical details for the use of plasmapheresis and other apheresis modalities for each indication in nephrology. Updated information on the molecular biology and immunology of each renal disease is discussed in relation to the rationale for apheresis therapy and its place amid other available treatments. Autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as anti-GBM (anti-glomerular basement membrane) glomerulonephritis (GN), ANCA (antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody)-related GN and the antibody-mediated type of TTP (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura), and alloantibody-mediated diseases such as kidney transplant sensitization and humoral rejection, can be treated by various plasmapheresis methods. These include standard plasmapheresis with a replacement volume, or plasmapheresis with online plasma purification using adsorption columns or secondary filtration. However, it should be noted that the pathogenic molecules implicated in FSGS (focal segmental glomerulosclerosis), myeloma cast nephropathy, and perhaps other diseases are too small to be removed by most online purification methods. A great majority of controlled trials and series on which evidence-based treatment recommendations are made were performed using centrifugal plasmapheresis; it is presumed that membrane-separation plasmapheresis is equally efficacious. For some rarer diseases, such as MPGN (membranoproliferative GN) type 2 with factor H abnormalities or C3Nef (C3 nephritic factor) autoantibodies, there are only a few case reports, but enough scientific understanding to warrant a trial of plasmapheresis in severe cases. Photopheresis, which is effective for cell-mediated rejection in heart and lung transplantation, has not yet found a place in the routine treatment of kidney transplant rejection.

Prevention and treatment of alloantibody-mediated kidney transplant rejection

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), which is commonly caused by preformed and/or de novo HLA alloantibodies, has evolved as a leading cause of early and late kidney allograft injury. In recent years, effective treatment strategies have been established to counteract the deleterious effects of humoral alloreactivity. One major therapeutic challenge is the barrier of a positive pretransplant lymphocytotoxic crossmatch. Several apheresis- and/or IVIG-based protocols have been shown to enable successful crossmatch conversion, including a strategy of peritransplant immunoadsorption for rapid crossmatch conversion immediately before deceased donor transplantation. While such protocols may increase transplant rates and allow for acceptable graft survival, at least in the short-term, it has become evident that, despite intense treatment, many patients still experience clinical or subclinical AMR. This reinforces the need for innovative strategies, such as complementary allocation programs to improve transplant outcomes. For acute AMR, various studies have suggested efficiency of plasmapheresis- or immunoadsorption-based protocols. There is, however, no established treatment for chronic AMR and the development of strategies to reverse or at least halt chronic active rejection remains a big challenge. Major improvements can be expected from studies evaluating innovative therapeutic concepts, such as proteasome inhibition or complement blocking agents.

Antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplantation: an update

INTRODUCTION

Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in renal-transplant recipients is generally less responsive to conventional antirejection therapy and has a worse prognosis than acute cellular rejection.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a broad understanding of the pathogenesis of AMR, recent advances in its therapy, and future directions. Conventional therapeutic approaches to AMR have minimal impact on mature plasma cells, the major source of antibody production. Emerging therapies include bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, and eculizumab, an anti-C5 antibody. In several reports, bortezomib therapy resulted in prompt reversal of rejection, decreased titers of donor-specific antibodies (DSA), and improved renal allograft function. Eculizumab also reversed AMR and prevented its development in patients with high post-transplantation DSA levels.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the small sample size and lack of controls, these studies are encouraging, and although larger studies and long-term follow-up are needed, bortezomib and eculizumab may play a major future role in AMR therapy.

Effects of immunosuppressive drugs on purified human B cells: evidence supporting the use of MMF and rapamycin

BACKGROUND

Humoral immunity is increasingly recognized as an important factor in the rejection of organ transplants. In general, humoral rejection is treated with standard immunosuppressive drugs. The direct effect of these immunosuppressive drugs on B cells is not well known.

METHODS

Purified human B cells devoid of T cells were stimulated with CD40L expressing L cells, or by anti-CD40 mAb with or without Toll-like receptor triggering, all in the presence of B-cell activating cytokines. These three protocols resulted in various degrees of B-cell stimulation. We added four commonly used immunosuppressive drugs (tacrolimus, cyclosporin, mycophenolic acid [MPA], and rapamycin) to these cultures and tested a variety of parameters of B-cell activity including proliferation, apoptosis induction, and both IgM and IgG production.

RESULTS

Tacrolimus and cyclosporin marginally inhibited B-cell proliferation and immunoglobulin production, and the extent of inhibition depended on the degree of the B-cell stimulation. In contrast, MPA and rapamycin profoundly inhibited both B-cell proliferation and immunoglobulin production, which was independent of the degree of B-cell stimulation. Both drugs induced B-cell apoptosis. Moreover, rapamycin caused a reduction in the number of B cells capable of producing immunoglobulins.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that MPA and rapamycin are capable of strongly inhibiting B cells responses. This provides a rationale for the use of both MPA and rapamycin to prevent or counteract humoral responses.

Antibody-Mediated Rejection

The introduction of both complement 4d (C4d) staining in renal allograft biopsies and sensitive methods to detect anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies, such as single antigen bead flow assays, into tissue-typing techniques have shown the importance of antibody-mediated alloimmune response in kidney transplantation. The use of these sensitive methods, combined with the increased number of transplants in highly sensitized patients with donor-specific antibodies, or patients receiving desensitization protocols, have increased the awareness and thus the incidence of acute antibody-mediated rejection. Chronic rejection also can be mediated through alloantibodies, and the term chronic antibody-mediated rejection recently was proposed. In this review article we summarize the current knowledge of the role of alloantibodies in transplantation, the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection, and their effect on graft function and outcome.

Presensitization: the problem and its management

Much attention has been placed recently on transplantation in highly HLA-sensitized patients. In attempts to remove these antibodies and enable successful transplantation, several novel approaches have been developed. These include intravenous Ig (IVIg), mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus, alemtuzumab, protein A immunoabsorption, and rituximab. IVIg has emerged as a very effective agent when used alone in high dose or when used in low dose and combined with plasmapheresis. Although alemtuzumab has been used to eliminated B cells, it fails to prevent antibody-mediated rejection and therefore probably is not suitable for desensitization. Rituximab, a B cell-specific antibody, seems to be safe and to have some efficacy as a sole agent in elimination of alloantibodies but most likely will require combination therapy with IVIg or other agents. Newer agents, such as humanized anti-CD20, are being developed. Despite the great interest in the problem of allosensitization, with one notable exception, there is a major deficiency in controlled clinical trials, the conduct of which should be a focus for the near future.

C4d as a significant predictor for humoral rejection in renal allografts

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic and clinical significance of C4d accumulation in renal allografts followed by acute rejection.

METHODS

A total of 158 graft biopsies performed from December 1997 to December 2002 were classified, according to the Banff-97 criteria, into hyperacute rejection (HAR, three cases), acute vascular rejection (AVR, 27), acute cellular rejection (ACR, 24), borderline rejection (BR, 38), acute tubular necrosis (ATN, five), stable graft function (SGF, 30) and baseline kidney (31). Immunohistochemical technique was used to determine the C4d deposition level.

RESULTS

The percentages of C4d positive in HAR, AVR, ACR, BR, ATN, SGF and baseline kidney groups were 100% (3/3), 77.8% (21/27), 37.5% (9/24), 23.7% (9/38), 0% (0/5), 3.3% (1/30), 0% (0/31), respectively. In acute rejection patients, the peak serum creatinine (sCr) level in C4d(ptc)-positive group (41 cases) was 334.82 +/- 238.37 micromol/L, with that of C4d(ptc)-negative group (47 cases) being 220.20 +/- 176.94 micromol/L (p < 0.01). After treatment, the trough sCr level in C4d(ptc)-positive group and C4d(ptc)-negative group were 176.87 +/- 111.80 and 121.75 +/- 34.59 micromol/L (p < 0.01), respectively. In each AVR, ACR and BR subgroups, the peak sCr level, the trough sCr level, after 3 or 6 months of AR, the sCr level in C4d(ptc)-positive subgroup was higher than that of C4d(ptc)-negative subgroup. There were more resistance against steroid therapy [65.9% (27/41) vs. 36.2% (17/47), p = 0.005] and a higher rate of graft loss [29.3% (12/41) vs. 6.4% (3/47), p = 0.001] in C4d(ptc)-positive group than those of C4d(ptc)-negative group. In each C4d(ptc)-positive subgroup of AVR, ACR and BR the complete reversion was 57.1, 56 and 66.7%, respectively, it is almost same.

CONCLUSION

The C4d deposition level is of great value in diagnosis of acute rejection caused by humoral immune components. It is a significant predictor of graft survival and will be of great help when treating acute rejection.

Humoral rejection of organ allografts

In recent years, the deleterious clinical consequences of recipient de novo alloantibody production against HLA antigens from human organ allografts have been extensively investigated. In kidney transplantation, the identification of the complement C4d fragment in peritubular capillaries as a specific marker for humoral rejection has helped to define and characterize distinct clinical alloantibody-mediated syndromes. This knowledge is relevant for patient management as new therapeutic strategies to remove and control anti-donor antibody production, particularly in the setting of acute humoral rejection, have been reported. For recipients of nonrenal organ allografts such as heart transplant recipients, de novo anti-HLA alloantibody may also be important, although more studies are needed before clear guidelines can be proposed.