Xenotransplantation: The Challenge to Current Psychosocial Attitudes

Current state of clinical trials on xenograft

BACKGROUND

Xenotransplantation is a worth investing branch of science, since it aims to fulfil the demand on human cells, tissues and organs. Despite decades of consistent work in preclinical assessments, clinical trials on xenotransplantation are far from reaching the targeted goal. Our study aims to track the characteristics, assess the content and summarize the plan of each trial on skin, beta-island, bone marrow, aortic valve and kidney xenografts, leading to a clear sorting of efforts made in this field.

METHODS

In December 2022, we searched clinicaltrial.gov for interventional clinical trials related to xenograft of skin, pancreas, bone marrow, aortic valve and kidney. A total of 14 clinical trials are included in this study. Characteristics on each trial were gathered. Linked publications were searched using Medline/PubMed and Embase/Scopus. Content of trials was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Only 14 clinical trials met our study's criteria. The majority were completed, and most of the trials' enrolment was between 11 and 50 participants. Nine trials used a xenograft of porcine origin. Six trials targeted skin xenotransplantation, four targeted β-cells, two targeted bone marrow and one trial targeted each of the kidney and aortic valve. The average length of trials was 3.38 years. Four trials were conducted in the United States and two trials in each of Brazil, Argentina and Sweden. Of all the included trials, none had any results provided and only three had published work. Phases I, III, and IV had only one trial each. A total of 501 participants were enrolled in these trials.

CONCLUSION

This study sheds the light on the current state of clinical trials on xenograft. Characteristically, trials on this field are of low number, low enrolment, short duration, few related publications and no published results. Porcine organs are the most used in these trials, and skin is the most studied organ. An extension of the literature is highly needed due to the variety of conflicts mentioned. Overall, this study sheds the light on the necessity of managing research efforts, leading to the initiation of more trials targeting the field of xenotransplantation.

Reevaluating the Ethical Issues in Porcine-to-Human Heart Xenotransplantation

A major limiting factor with heart allotransplantation remains the availability of organs from deceased donors. Porcine heart xenotransplantation could serve as an alternative source of organs for patients with terminal heart failure. A first-in-human porcine xenotransplantation that occurred in January 2022 at the University of Maryland Medical Center provided an opportunity to examine several ethical issues to guide selection criteria for future xenotransplantation clinical trials. In this article, the authors, who are clinicians at UMMC, discuss the appropriate balancing of risks and benefits and the significance, if any, of clinical equipoise. The authors also review the alleged role of the psychosocial evaluation in identifying patients at an elevated risk of posttransplant noncompliance, and they consider how the evaluation's implementation might enhance inequities among diverse populations. The authors argue that, based on the principle of reciprocity, psychosocial criteria should be used, not to exclude patients, but instead to identify patients who need additional support. Finally, the authors discuss the requirements for and the proper assessment of informed and voluntary consent from patients being considered for xenotransplantation.

'Dirty pigs' and the xenotransplantation paradox

For almost the last 300 years human beings have sought to use organs from non-human animals to repair or replace their own failing organs. This procedure of intraspecies transplant is called xenotransplantation, and despite the continued attempts by researchers, it is yet to be successful. Experiments in xenotransplantation persist, however, partly based on the perceived biological similarities that exist between humans and non-human animals despite the success of xenotransplantation being hampered by the ability of the human body's immune system to attack and therefore reject foreign material. In this article, I explore the sociocultural reactions to xenotransplantation which demonstrates that it is based on a paradox; although non-human animals and humans are thought to be biologically compatible or similar, many assume and emphasise just how different we are from non-human animals. These two positions of 'same but different' are arguably incompatible. I begin by reviewing social science research that demonstrates, despite some variation, a range of persistent concerns towards xenotransplantation including the consequences for personal identity should a person receive a non-human animal organ. I add to this body of work, findings from a mixed-method study involving focus groups and a representative survey with young adults to show that most people prefer to have their organs replaced by materials from their own body and non-human animals the least. These reactions sit within a broader context of a 'wisdom of repugnance' that is brought into existence when our classifications of what is thought to be natural or not is threatened.

Corneal xenotransplantation: Where are we standing?

The search for alternatives to allotransplants is driven by the shortage of corneal donors and is demanding because of the limitations of the alternatives. Indeed, current progress in genetically engineered (GE) pigs, the introduction of gene-editing technology by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9, and advanced immunosuppressants have made xenotransplantation a possible option for a human trial. Porcine corneal xenotransplantation is considered applicable because the eye is regarded as an immune-privileged site. Furthermore, recent non-human primate studies have shown long-term survival of porcine xenotransplants in keratoplasty. Herein, corneal immune privilege is briefly introduced, and xenogeneic reactions are compared with allogeneic reactions in corneal transplantation. This review describes the current knowledge on special issues of xenotransplantation, xenogeneic rejection mechanisms, current immunosuppressive regimens of corneal xenotransplantation, preclinical efficacy and safety data of corneal xenotransplantation, and updates of the regulatory framework to conduct a clinical trial on corneal xenotransplantation. We also discuss barriers that might prevent xenotransplantation from becoming common practice, such as ethical dilemmas, public concerns on xenotransplantation, and the possible risk of xenozoonosis. Given that the legal definition of decellularized porcine cornea (DPC) lies somewhere between a medical device and a xenotransplant, the preclinical efficacy and clinical trial data using DPC are included. The review finally provides perspectives on the current standpoint of corneal xenotransplantation in the fields of regenerative medicine.

Attitudes of Potential Candidates for Heart and Heart-Lung Transplantation to Xenotransplantation

Context and Objectives

Whether the fact that a transplanted organ is non-human would affect acceptance levels among potential recipients of heart and heart-lung xenografts has not been determined. Studies in renal patients have produced contradictory results. Furthermore, no previous studies have examined the attitudes toward xenotransplantation among the chief caregivers of potential transplant recipients.

Participants and Measures

Fifty-nine patients and 54 caregivers responded to a questionnaire that requested their views on xenotransplantation, the source and level of their knowledge about xenotransplantation, and the perceived costs and benefits of this intervention. Patients' and caregivers' attitudes to animal experimentation and killing animals for human benefit were also assessed by using a specifically designed attitude questionnaire.

Results

Fifty-six percent of patients and 48% of caregivers were unsure about xenotransplantation. Seventy-nine percent of patients and 85% of caregivers indicated that they had received little or no information about xenotransplantation, and what information they had received was from nonmedical sources. Availability of organs was the main perceived benefit (36% of patients and 40% of caregivers) and ethical and moral issues were the main perceived cost (20% of patients and 25% of caregivers). Overall patients and caregivers were in agreement with animal experimentation and killing animals for human benefit.

Conclusions

Potential heart and heart-lung recipients and their caregivers have limited information about xenotransplantation and are currently unsure about the acceptability of this procedure. Although this uncertainty may be due to their lack of information about this intervention, it may also reflect concerns about the morality of breeding animals solely to provide organs for transplantation.