Extracorporeal Photopheresis With Low-Dose Immunosuppression in High-Risk Heart Transplant Patients-A Pilot Study

Analyzing research trends in the relationship between immunosuppressants and cancer following organ transplantation: a bibliometric study from 2001 to 2023

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in investigating the potential benefits or risks associated with using immunosuppressants for treating specific tumors post organ transplantation, with a focus on selecting appropriate drugs, doses, and treatment protocols. This study used bibliometric analysis to evaluate research trends and hotspots in this field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the Web of Science to identify studies focusing immunosuppressants and cancer following organ transplantation from 2001 to 2023. The search strategy utilized a variety of the keywords including "immunosuppressants", "cancer" and "transplant". Data extraction involved recording various parameters such as title, author, institution, country, publication, citation, H-index, immunosuppressant, and type of transplantation.

RESULTS

The analysis encompassed a total of 94 studies. The findings revealed that the period from 2005 to 2010 emerged as the most influential timeframe within this research. The United States ranked highest in the number of publications, with Vivarelli M identified as the most productive author, and the University of Bologna recognized as the most productive institute. "Immunosuppression", "rapamycin" and "kidney" were identified as the key hotspots within this field. Notably, rapamycin was identified as the predominant immunosuppressant and kidney transplantation emerged as the most prominent type of transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

While immunosuppressants have been extensively utilized in organ transplant procedures, certain associated cancer risks have not been well addressed. Further long-term monitoring studies are required for numerous immunosuppressants to elucidate precise applications and potential implications for solid-organ transplant recipients.

Unlocking the promise of mesenchymal stem cells and extracorporeal photopheresis to address rejection and graft failure in intestinal transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

In patients with irreversible intestinal failure, intestinal transplant has become a standard treatment option. Graft failure secondary to acute or chronic cellular rejection continues to be a significant challenge following transplant. Even with optimal immune suppression, some patients continue to struggle with refractory rejection. Both extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) and extracellular vesicles derived from mesenchymal stem cells (EVs) have been used to treat refractory rejection following intestinal transplantation, although their use remains limited and consistent treatment protocols are lacking.

METHODS

Intestinal transplant recipients who received ECP only or ECP and EVs as rescue therapy for acute cellular rejection or chronic inflammation between 2016 and 2022 were included in this single-center retrospective analysis. Baseline demographics, pre- and post-treatment histopathology, endoscopic and biochemical findings, and long-term transplant outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three patients (two pediatric and one adult) with acute steroid- and biologic-refractory rejection were treated with ECP and/or EVs, as was one patient (pediatric) with chronic graft rejection and inflammation. Patients received twice weekly ECP for 4 weeks and once weekly thereafter. EVs were administered in three doses each separated by 72 h. Immunosuppression at the time of treatment initiation included high-dose tacrolimus and sirolimus. Histologic resolution of rejection was achieved in all patients over 12-16 weeks. Steroids were weaned to low-dose or withdrawn in every patient within 4 weeks of ECP/EV treatment. C-reactive protein decreased from an average of 14.75 to 1.6 mg/dL post-treatment and fecal calprotectin decreased from average 800 mg/g to 31 mg/g. Donor-induced cytotoxic T cell populations were quantified for two of the patients with acute rejection, and in both cases decreased dramatically following treatment. There were no complications associated with either treatment.

CONCLUSION

Both ECP and EVs present novel opportunities to address graft rejection and inflammation in bowel transplant recipients. More work will be needed to define the optimal therapeutic parameters for each treatment modality.

The use of extracorporeal photopheresis in solid organ transplantation-current status and future directions

Prevention and management of allograft rejection urgently require more effective therapeutic solutions. Current immunosuppressive therapies used in solid organ transplantation, while effective in reducing the risk of acute rejection, are associated with substantial adverse effects. There is, therefore, a need for agents that can provide immunomodulation, supporting graft tolerance, while minimizing the need for immunosuppression. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is an immunomodulatory therapy currently recommended in international guidelines as an adjunctive treatment for the prevention and management of organ rejection in heart and lung transplantations. This article reviews clinical experience and ongoing research with ECP for organ rejection in heart and lung transplantations, as well as emerging findings in kidney and liver transplantation. ECP, due to its immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive-sparing effects, offers a potential therapeutic option in these settings, particularly in high-risk patients with comorbidities, infectious complications, or malignancies.

The value of extracorporeal photopheresis as an immunosuppression-modifying approach in solid organ transplantation: a potential solution to an unmet medical need

Allograft rejection is a critical issue following solid organ transplantation (SOT). Immunosuppressive therapies are crucial in reducing risk of rejection yet are accompanied by several significant side effects, including infection, malignancy, cardiovascular diseases, and nephrotoxicity. There is a current unmet medical need with a lack of effective minimization strategies for these side effects. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) has shown potential as an immunosuppression (IS)-modifying technique in several SOT types, with improvements seen in acute and recurrent rejection, allograft survival, and associated side effects, and could fulfil this unmet need. Through a review of the available literature detailing key areas in which ECP may benefit patients, this review highlights the IS-modifying potential of ECP in the four most common SOT procedures (heart, lung, kidney, and liver transplantation) and highlights existing gaps in data. Current evidence supports the use of ECP for IS modification following SOT, however there is a need for further high-quality research, in particular randomized control trials, in this area.

Mode of action, indications and recommendations on extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP)

Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) has gained importance in the treatment of several diseases. Initially introduced as a new therapeutic modality for the treatment of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the indications for the use of ECP have expanded to include hematology and transplantation immunology. Extracorporeal photopheresis has found its place in the treatment plan of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, systemic sclerosis, graft-versus-host disease, organ transplantation such as heart and lung, sometimes as first-line therapy and very often in combination with various systemic immunosuppressive therapies. The procedure basically consists of three steps: leukapheresis, photoactivation and reinfusion. The following article presents possible theories about the mechanism of action, which is not yet fully understood, and discusses the five most common indications for ECP treatment with corresponding therapy recommendations.

Wirkweise, Indikationen und Therapieempfehlungen der extrakorporalen Photopherese (ECP)

Die extrakorporale Photopherese (ECP) hat in jüngster Zeit bei der Behandlung verschiedener Krankheiten an Bedeutung gewonnen. Ursprünglich als neue Therapie zur Behandlung von Patienten mit kutanem T‐Zell‐Lymphom vorgestellt, hat sich der Indikationsbereich für die ECP auf Hämatologie und Transplantationsimmunologie erweitert. Die ECP hat ihren festen Platz im Therapieplan bei kutanen T‐Zell‐Lymphomen, systemischer Sklerose, Graft‐versus‐Host‐Erkrankung, Organtransplantationen wie Herz und Lunge, teilweise als Erstlinientherapie und sehr häufig in Kombination mit verschiedenen systemischen immunsuppressiven Therapien. Das Verfahren besteht im Wesentlichen aus drei Schritten: Leukapherese, Photoaktivierung und Reinfusion. Im folgenden Artikel werden die noch nicht vollständig verstandenen Wirkmechanismen dargestellt, die fünf häufigsten Indikationen für die Behandlung mit ECP diskutiert und Therapieempfehlungen für die jeweilige Indikation gegeben.

European multicenter study on the real-world use and clinical impact of extracorporeal photopheresis after heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to describe the real-world use of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) and assess its impact on clinical outcomes in the modern era of heart transplantation.

METHODS

Seven transplant centers from 5 European countries participated in this retrospective, observational, single-arm chart review study. All patients received ECP after heart transplantation in 2015 or later. Data were extracted from medical records between November 2020 and December 2021.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 patients were enrolled and followed for an average of 2 years after initiation of ECP. Reasons to start ECP were acute cellular rejection (35.2%), rejection prevention (32.4%), mixed rejection (18.1%), and antibody-mediated rejection (14.3%). Rejection ISHLT grades improved from start to end of ECP treatment in 92% of patients treated with ECP for rejection. Of patients who started ECP to prevent rejection, 88% remained free from any rejection despite a reduction of calcineurin inhibitors. Overall survival was 95%, and no deaths were related to ECP. Safety events occurred in 18 patients, of which 13 experienced complications with venous access.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the largest European ECP study in heart transplantation, demonstrates that ECP can effectively be used to treat different rejection types and to prevent rejection in the modern era of immunosuppression. Patients with rejections who have received ECP have shown high response as measured by histological improvements in ISHLT classification. A high percentage of patients in the prevention group remained free from rejection despite reduction in immunosuppression, in particular calcineurin inhibitors.

Risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer with immunosuppressants, part I: Calcineurin inhibitors, thiopurines, IMDH inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, and corticosteroids

Immunosuppression is a well-documented risk factor for skin cancer, as exemplified by the 65- to 250-fold higher squamous cell carcinoma risk, 10-fold higher basal cell carcinoma risk, and 0 to 8-fold higher melanoma risk in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving potent, prolonged courses of immunosuppressive therapies. Numerous immune system components have been shown to either suppress or promote tumor growth, and immunosuppressive drugs may have additional effects on proliferative pathways independent of the immune system. Thus, evaluation of the specific regimen by the dermatologist is key for assessing skin cancer risk in each patient. In the present manuscript, the immune-mediated mechanisms of skin cancer development and regression are first reviewed. Next, a synthesis of the evidence shows the differing effects of immunosuppressive agents commonly used in SOTRs on melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer risk. These include systemic calcineurin inhibitors, thiopurines, IMDH (inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase) inhibitors, mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) inhibitors, and systemic corticosteroids. Finally, recommendations for skin cancer screening in SOTRs are discussed. We further offer recommendations for select nontransplant patients who may benefit from routine skin cancer screening due to risks associated with specific immunosuppressant exposure, and we propose evidence-based strategies for minimizing high-risk immunosuppressant use in clinical practice.