Four-year allograft survival in a highly sensitized combined liver-kidney transplant patient despite unsuccessful anti-HLA antibody reduction with rituximab, splenectomy, and bortezomib

Antibody-mediated rejection of the liver allograft: An update and a clinico-pathological perspective

Antibody-mediated rejection after liver transplantation is an under-recognised cause of allograft injury. While definitions of acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection have increased clinical awareness, timely identification and management of antibody-mediated rejection remain difficult because of complexities in diagnosis and histopathology, lack of treatment protocols, and unclear long-term outcomes. While recent cohort studies assessing the importance of donor-specific antibodies have aided in its diagnosis, literature on the treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation remain limited to case reports and small series. Further increasing the awareness and timely recognition of antibody-mediated rejection post-liver transplantation is crucial in order to stimulate future research and the development of protocols for its diagnosis and treatment. This review will summarise recent advances in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in liver transplantation, as well as some of the histopathologic features (on liver biopsy tissue) of acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection.

Intra-operative kinetics of anti-HLA antibody in simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation

During simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLK) in highly sensitized patients, donor specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies (DSA, HLA) can be present prior to transplant leading to positive crossmatch, yet these recipients have relatively low incidences of acute rejection. The mechanisms and timing underlying immunologic changes that occur intra-operatively remain largely unknown. Therefore, we measured the intra- and peri-operative kinetics of anti-HLA antibodies in highly sensitized SLK recipients. In this study, pre- and post-operative blood samples were obtained from sensitized SLK candidates with documented DSA. Intra-operative samples were obtained from a sub-group of SLK recipients. Pretransplant anti-HLA antibody profiles were created and flow cytometry and anti-human globulin complement-dependent cytotoxic crossmatches were performed. Significant reductions in anti-HLA class I and II DSA were seen intra-operatively shortly after reperfusion of the liver allograft. This effect was most pronounced for anti-HLA class I DSA (mean change, −85%, p < 0.05); changes to anti-HLA class II DSA were less robust (mean change, −47%, p = 0.15). Importantly, non-DSA anti-HLA antibodies remained unchanged throughout the perioperative period, suggesting the mechanism(s) by which the liver lowers DSA levels are specific to the DSA. These data demonstrate the immunologic benefit of performing SLK is lasting and occurs very shortly after liver reperfusion.

Outcome of the risk-stratified desensitization protocol in donor-specific antibody-positive living kidney transplant recipients: a retrospective study

Acceptable outcomes of donor-specific antibody (DSA)-positive living kidney transplantation (LKT) have recently been reported. However, LKT in crossmatch (XM)-positive patients remains at high-risk and requires an optimal desensitization protocol. We report our intermediate-term outcomes of XM-positive LKT vs. XM-negative LKT in patients who underwent LKT between January 2012 and June 2015 in our institution. The rate of acute antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) within 90 days postoperation, graft function, and patient, and graft survival rates at 4 years were investigated. Patients were divided into three groups: XM-DSA- (n = 229), XM-DSA+ (n = 36), and XM + DSA+ (n = 15). The XM + DSA+ group patients underwent desensitization with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, and rituximab. The rates of ABMR within 90 days in the XM-DSA-, XM-DSA+, and XM + DSA+ groups were 1.3%, 9.4%, and 60.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the graft function throughout the observational period, the 4-year patient or graft survival rates among three groups. This study showed that intermediate-term outcomes of XM-positive LKT were comparable to XM-negative LKT. However, our current desensitization protocol cannot avert ABMR within 90 days, and XM positivity is still a significant risk factor for ABMR. Further refinement of the current desensitization regimen is required.

Intravenous immunoglobulins in liver transplant patients: Perspectives of clinical immune modulation

Shortage of appropriate donor grafts is the foremost current problem in organ transplantation. As a logical consequence, waiting times have extended and pretransplant mortality rates were significantly increasing. The implementation of a priority-based liver allocation system using the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score helped to reduce waiting list mortality in liver transplantation (LT). However, due to an escalating organ scarcity, pre-LT MELD scores have significantly increased and liver recipients became more complex in recent years. This has finally led to posttransplant decreasing survival rates, attributed mainly to elevated rates of infectious and immunologic complications. To meet this challenging development, an increasing number of extended criteria donor grafts are currently accepted, which may, however, aggravate the patients’ infectious and immunologic risk profiles. The administration of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) is an established treatment in patients with immune deficiencies and other antibody-mediated diseases. In addition, IVIg was shown to be useful in treatment of several disorders caused by deterioration of the cellular immune system. It proved to be effective in preventing hyperacute rejection in highly sensitized kidney and heart transplants. In the liver transplant setting, the administration of specific Ig against hepatitis B virus is current standard in post-LT antiviral prophylaxis. The mechanisms of action of IVIg are complex and not fully understood. However, there is increasing experimental and clinical evidence that IVIg has an immuno-balancing impact by a combination of immuno-supporting and immuno-suppressive properties. It may be suggested that, especially in the context of a worsening organ shortage with all resulting clinical implications, liver transplant patients should benefit from immuno-regulatory capabilities of IVIg. In this review, perspectives of immune modulation by IVIg and impact on outcome in liver transplant patients are described.