Belatacept: A worthy alternative to cyclosporine?

Belatacept based immunosuppression: What and when to combine?

INTRODUCTION

This study examines the effect of belatacept based salvage regimens on kidney transplant outcomes.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included all adult kidney transplant recipients between 2011 and 2022 who were converted to belatacept salvage therapy during their follow up. eGFR, graft survival, incidence of infections and neoplasia, histology and DSA data were collected through systematic review of the medical record.

RESULTS

Patients were divided into 3 groups based on salvage regimen: Mycophenolate mofetil/belatacept (MMF/Bela) (n = 28), low-dose Calcineurin inhibitors/belatacept (CNI/Bela) (n = 22), and low-dose Calcineurin inhibitors/ Mycophenolate mofetil /belatacept (CNI/MMF/Bela) (n = 13). Patients with antibody-mediated rejection were more likely to receive CNIs in addition to belatacept (low-dose CNI/MMF/Bela 54%, low-dose CNI/Bela 45%, MMF/Bela 3.6%, p < 0.001). DSA decreased in all groups after transition to belatacept by 15.67% (p = 0.15). No difference in Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time was observed between the groups, and eGFR remained stable over the first year after transition to belatacept. The incidence of death and allograft failure was similar between the groups (low- dose CNI/MMF/Bela n = 3, low-dose CNI/Bela n = 7, MMF/Bela n = 4; p = 0.41). Patients in the low-dose CNI/Bela cohort who were transitioned to belatacept within 6 months from transplant showed a decline in eGFR over the first year after transition, while the other treatment cohorts demonstrated stable or slight increase in eGFR.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates comparable transplant outcomes in terms of eGFR, graft survival, incidence of infections and neoplasia, rejection rate and donor specific antibody (DSA) in three belatacept-based maintenance immunosuppression regimens supporting the safety and efficacy of these therapeutic options.

Immunosuppressant Medications in Pregnancy

Pregnant patients are often on immunosuppressant medications, most commonly to manage transplantation or autoimmune disorders. Most immunosuppressant agents, including tacrolimus, corticosteroids, azathioprine, and calcineurin inhibitors, are safe during pregnancy and lactation. However, mycophenolic acid is associated with higher risks of birth defects and should be avoided in pregnancy. Tacrolimus, the commonly used drug in transplantation medicine and autoimmune disorders, requires monitoring of serum levels for dose adjustment, particularly during pregnancy. Although no pregnancy-specific therapeutic range exists, the general target range is 5-15 ng/mL, and pregnant patients may require higher doses to achieve therapeutic levels. Adherence to prescribed immunosuppressive regimens is crucial to prevent graft rejection and autoimmune disorder flare-ups. This review aims to provide essential information about the use of immunosuppressant medications in pregnant individuals. With a rising number of pregnant patients undergoing organ transplantations or having autoimmune disorders, it is important to understand the implications of the use of these medications during pregnancy.

Exploring Costimulatory Blockade-Based Immunologic Strategies in Transplantation: Are They a Promising Immunomodulatory Approach for Organ and Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation?

The field of transplantation, including the specialized area of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA), has been transformed since the first hand transplant in 1998. The major challenge in VCA comes from the need for life-long immunosuppressive therapy due to its non-vital nature and a high rate of systemic complications. Ongoing research is focused on immunosuppressive therapeutic strategies to avoid toxicity and promote donor-specific tolerance. This includes studying the balance between tolerance and effector mechanisms in immune modulation, particularly the role of costimulatory signals in T lymphocyte activation. Costimulatory signals during T cell activation can have either stimulatory or inhibitory effects. Interfering with T cell activation through costimulation blockade strategies shows potential in avoiding rejection and prolonging the survival of transplanted organs. This review paper aims to summarize current data on the immunologic role of costimulatory blockade in the field of transplantation. It focuses on strategies that can be applied in vascularized composite allotransplantation, offering insights into novel methods for enhancing the success and safety of these procedures.

Pharmacotherapeutic options for the prevention of kidney transplant rejection: the evidence to date

INTRODUCTION

Although early rejection episodes are successfully controlled, the problem of unrecognized production of de novo anti HLA antibodies and associated chronic rejection still persists.

AREAS COVERED

In addition to the standard induction and maintenance therapy, we present a couple of new drugs as induction (Alemtuzumab), CNI free protocol (Belatacept, Sirolimus, Everolimus), maintenance treatment in transplant patients with various type of malignancies (T cell targeted immunomodulators blocking the immune checkpoints CTLA-4, PD1/PDL1) and TMA (aHUS) -eculizimab, and IL6 receptor antagonists in antibody mediated rejection (AMR).

EXPERT OPINION

There are couple of issues still preventing improvement in kidney transplant long-term outcomes with current and anticipated future immunosuppression: patient more susceptible to infection and CNI nephrotoxicity in kidneys obtained from elderly donors, highly sensitized patients with limited chances to get appropriate kidney and a higher risk for late AMR. A lower rate of CMV/BK virus infections has been observed in everolimus treated patients. Belatacept use has been justified only in EBV seropositive kidney transplants due to the increased risk of PTLD. Eculizumab upon recurrence of aHUS is a sole cost-effective option. A new IL-6 blocking drug (clazakizumab/tocilizumab) is promising option for prevention/treatment of AMR. Clinical experience in tailoring immunosuppression for as long as possible graft and patient survival is inevitable.

Current Status on Immunological Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) occurs when there is destruction of beta cells within the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas due to autoimmunity. It is considered a complex disease, and different complications can surface and worsen the condition if T1D is not managed well. Since it is an incurable disease, numerous treatments and therapies have been postulated in order to control T1D by balancing hyperglycemia control while minimizing hypoglycemic episodes. The purpose of this review is to primarily look into the current state of the available immunological therapies and their advantages for the treatment of T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the years, immunological therapy has become the center of attraction to treat T1D. Immunomodulatory approaches on non-antigens involving agents such as cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, anti-CD20, cytotoxic T cells, anti-TNF, anti-CD3, and anti-thymocyte globulin as well as immunomodulative approaches on antigens such as insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase, and heat shock protein 60 have been studied. Aside from these two approaches, studies and trials have also been conducted on regulatory T cells, dendritic cells, interleukin 2, interleukin 4, M2 macrophages, and rapamycin/interleukin 2 combination therapy to test their effects on patients with T1D. Many of these agents have successfully suppressed T1D in non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice and in human trials. However, some have shown negative results. To date, the insights into the management of the immune system have been increasing rapidly to search for potential therapies and treatments for T1D. Nevertheless, some of the challenges are still inevitable. A lot of work and effort need to be put into the investigation on T1D through immunological therapy, particularly to reduce complications to improve and enhance clinical outcomes.

Regarding the past, what is the trial you have always been dreaming of in CIDP?

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy is an orphan disease of poorly understood cause. While first line treatments with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange have at least short-term efficacy, no trial has shown that immunosuppressants work. In our dream, we will take advantage of the recently improved EU regulations to launch a Europe wide trial which will investigate the cause of the disease. It will compare three parallel groups, the anti-B cell agent rituximab, the anti-T cell agent abatacept and usual care. The trial will not be blinded and the design will be very simple. The primary outcome measure will be improvement from baseline of the overall neuropathy limitations scale (ONLS) score by 1 or more grades at 12 weeks without increase in concomitant corticosteroids or IVIg or use of plasma exchange. There will be an option to substitute improvement in the Rasch-built overall disability scale depending on future experience with that scale as the primary outcome measure. The trial will require 3 groups of 60 participants to detect an increase from 20% in the usual care group to 30% with one of the other agents with a power of 90% and P-value of 5%. It will be larger than any trial of an immunosuppressant agent so far performed in CIDP. However, recruitment will be easier because inclusion criteria will be broad and allow randomisation of any patient in whom their neurologist wishes to introduce an immunosuppressant. Avoidance of blinding and use of simple monitoring with facetime will simplify running the trial and reduce expense. The trial will follow participants and measure outcomes at 12 months. Other outcomes will consist only of grip strength, time to walk 10 m and Euroqol, the last allowing us to estimate the cost per QALY of rituximab or abatacept. Even including central analysis of key biomarkers, the trial will only cost 3 million euros, a fraction of the cost of the usual phase III pharmaceutical company trial.

Indirect treatment comparison of belatacept versus tacrolimus from a systematic review of immunosuppressive therapies for kidney transplant patients

OBJECTIVE

End-stage renal disease is the final and irreversible stage in chronic kidney disease, leading to patient mortality, unless managed by dialysis or transplantation (the treatment of choice). This study aimed to compare a currently recommended immunosuppressive treatment, tacrolimus, against a newer treatment, belatacept, using indirect treatment comparison (ITC) techniques since no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tacrolimus against belatacept currently exist.

METHODS

ITC was employed to calculate estimates for the relative risks and mean difference of tacrolimus against belatacept. The choice of the Bucher ITC model was driven by the available data and the simple indirect treatment comparison involving three treatments was considered appropriate.

RESULTS

The results of the indirect analysis showed no significant differences between belatacept and tacrolimus treatments for mortality and graft loss. The acute rejection rate was significantly lower with tacrolimus (Prograf* and Advagraf (*) ) compared with belatacept (0.22 [0.13, 0.39] to 0.44 [0.20, 0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that tacrolimus is significantly superior to belatacept in terms of acute rejection outcomes but comparable for graft and patient survival. Further research should include a properly designed clinical trial comparing tacrolimus against belatacept directly.

LIMITATIONS

These include variations in terms of clinical and design differences among the trials, weaknesses in the Bucher method and the lack of long-term clinical trial data with tacrolimus to compare with the recent long-term (7 years) belatacept trial data.

Mining the human urine proteome for monitoring renal transplant injury

The human urinary proteome provides an assessment of kidney injury with specific biomarkers for different kidney injury phenotypes. In an effort to fully map and decipher changes in the urine proteome and peptidome after kidney transplantation, renal allograft biopsy matched urine samples were collected from 396 kidney transplant recipients. Centralized and blinded histology data from paired graft biopsies was used to classify urine samples into diagnostic categories of acute rejection, chronic allograft nephropathy, BK virus nephritis, and stable graft. A total of 245 urine samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry using isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation (iTRAQ) reagents. From a group of over 900 proteins identified in transplant injury, a set of 131 peptides were assessed by selected reaction monitoring for their significance in accurately segregating organ injury causation and pathology in an independent cohort of 151 urine samples. Ultimately, a minimal set of 35 proteins were identified for their ability to segregate the 3 major transplant injury clinical groups, comprising the final panel of 11 urinary peptides for acute rejection (93% area under the curve [AUC]), 12 urinary peptides for chronic allograft nephropathy (99% AUC), and 12 urinary peptides for BK virus nephritis (83% AUC). Thus, urinary proteome discovery and targeted validation can identify urine protein panels for rapid and noninvasive differentiation of different causes of kidney transplant injury, without the requirement of an invasive biopsy.