Autologous Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Following Pancreatectomy for Pancreas Diseases Other Than Chronic Pancreatitis: A 15-Y Study of the Milan Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatogenic diabetes, a consequence of pancreatic tissue loss following pancreatectomy, poses a significant challenge for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Islet autotransplantation (IAT) offers a promising approach to prevent or alleviate pancreatogenic diabetes, but its application has been limited to individuals with painful chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: This study presents a 15-y clinical experience with the Milan Protocol, which expands IAT after pancreatectomy to a broader spectrum of patients with malignant and nonmalignant pancreatic diseases. The analysis evaluates feasibility, efficacy, and safety of IAT. Modified Igls criteria validated through the arginine test and mixed meal tolerance tests were used to assess long-term metabolic outcomes. RESULTS: Between November 2008 and June 2023, IAT procedures were performed on 114 of 147 candidates. IAT-related complications occurred in 19 of 114 patients (16.7%), with 5 being potentially serious. Patients exhibited sustained C-peptide secretion over the 10-y follow-up period, demonstrating a prevalence of optimal and good beta-cell function. Individuals who underwent partial pancreatectomy demonstrated superior metabolic outcomes, including sustained C-peptide secretion and a reduced risk of developing diabetes or insulin dependence compared with those who underwent total pancreatectomy. For patients who had total pancreatectomy, the quantity of infused islets and tissue volume were identified as critical factors influencing metabolic outcomes. An increased risk of recurrence or progression of baseline diseases was not observed in subjects with neoplasms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insights into the benefits and applications of IAT as a therapeutic option for pancreatogenic diabetes after pancreatic surgery, expanding its potential beyond painful chronic pancreatitis.

Allo Beta Cell transplantation: specific features, unanswered questions, and immunological challenge.

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) presents a persistent medical challenge, demanding innovative strategies for sustained glycemic control and enhanced patient well-being. Beta cells are specialized cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar levels. When beta cells are damaged or destroyed, insulin production decreases, which leads to T1D. Allo Beta Cell Transplantation has emerged as a promising therapeutic avenue, with the goal of reinstating glucose regulation and insulin production in T1D patients. However, the path to success in this approach is fraught with complex immunological hurdles that demand rigorous exploration and resolution for enduring therapeutic efficacy. This exploration focuses on the distinct immunological characteristics inherent to Allo Beta Cell Transplantation. An understanding of these unique challenges is pivotal for the development of effective therapeutic interventions. The critical role of glucose regulation and insulin in immune activation is emphasized, with an emphasis on the intricate interplay between beta cells and immune cells. The transplantation site, particularly the liver, is examined in depth, highlighting its relevance in the context of complex immunological issues. Scrutiny extends to recipient and donor matching, including the utilization of multiple islet donors, while also considering the potential risk of autoimmune recurrence. Moreover, unanswered questions and persistent gaps in knowledge within the field are identified. These include the absence of robust evidence supporting immunosuppression treatments, the need for reliable methods to assess rejection and treatment protocols, the lack of validated biomarkers for monitoring beta cell loss, and the imperative need for improved beta cell imaging techniques. In addition, attention is drawn to emerging directions and transformative strategies in the field. This encompasses alternative immunosuppressive regimens and calcineurin-free immunoprotocols, as well as a reevaluation of induction therapy and recipient preconditioning methods. Innovative approaches targeting autoimmune recurrence, such as CAR Tregs and TCR Tregs, are explored, along with the potential of stem stealth cells, tissue engineering, and encapsulation to overcome the risk of graft rejection. In summary, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the inherent immunological obstacles associated with Allo Beta Cell Transplantation. It offers valuable insights into emerging strategies and directions that hold great promise for advancing the field and ultimately improving outcomes for individuals living with diabetes.

Total Pancreatectomy With Islet Autotransplantation as an Alternative to High-risk Pancreatojejunostomy After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and total pancreatectomy (TP) with islet autotransplantation (IAT) in patients at high risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). BACKGROUND: Criteria to predict the risk of POPF occurrence after PD are available. However, even when a high risk of POPF is predicted, TP is not currently accepted as an alternative to PD, because of its severe consequences on glycaemic control. Combining IAT with TP may mitigate such consequences. METHODS: Randomized, open-label, controlled, bicentric trial (NCT01346098). Candidates for PD at high-risk pancreatic anastomosis (ie, soft pancreas and duct diameter ≤3 mm) were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either PD or TP-IAT. The primary endpoint was the incidence of complications within 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, 61 patients were assigned to PD (n=31) or TP-IAT (n=30). In the intention-to-treat analysis, morbidity rate was 90·3% after PD and 60% after TP-IAT ( P =0.008). According to complications' severity, PD was associated with an increased risk of grade ≥2 [odds ratio (OR)=7.64 (95% CI: 1.35-43.3), P =0.022], while the OR for grade ≥3 complications was 2.82 (95% CI: 0.86-9.24, P =0.086). After TP-IAT, the postoperative stay was shorter [median: 10.5 vs 16.0 days; P <0.001). No differences were observed in disease-free survival, site of recurrence, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. TP-IAT was associated with a higher risk of diabetes [hazard ratio=9.1 (95% CI: 3.76-21.9), P <0.0001], but most patients maintained good metabolic control and showed sustained C-peptide production over time. CONCLUSIONS: TP-IAT may become the standard treatment in candidates for PD, when a high risk of POPF is predicted.

COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipient: Exploring Cumulative Incidence, Seroprevalence and Risk Factors for Disease Severity.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients may be at increased risk for severe disease and mortality from COVID-19 because of immunosuppression and prolonged end-stage organ disease. As a transplant center serving a diverse patient population, we report the cumulative incidence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in our cohort of SOT recipients. METHODS: We prospectively included in this observational study SOT recipients with a functioning kidney (n = 201), pancreas ± kidney (n = 66) or islet transplant (n = 24), attending outpatient regular follow-up at the San Raffaele Hospital from February 2020 to April 2021. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were tested in all patients by a luciferase immunoprecipitation system assay. RESULTS: Of the 291 SOT recipients, 30 (10.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and prevalence was not different among different transplants. The SARS-CoV-2 antibody frequency was around 2.6-fold higher than the incidence of cases who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. As for the WHO COVID-19 severity classification, 19 (63.3%) SOT recipients were mild, nine (30%) were moderate, and two were critical and died yielding a crude mortality rate in our patient population of 6.7%. Kidney transplant (OR 12.9 (1.1-150) p = 0.041) was associated with an increased risk for moderate/critical disease, while statin therapy (OR 0.116 (0.015-0.926) p = 0.042) and pancreas/islet transplant (OR 0.077 (0.007-0.906) p = 0.041) were protective. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in SOT recipients may be higher than previously described. Due to the relative high crude mortality, symptomatic SOT recipients must be considered at high risk in case of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Islet Allotransplantation in the Bone Marrow of Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Results in murine and nonhuman primate suggested that the bone marrow (BM) might be an alternative site for pancreatic islet transplantation. METHODS: We report the results of 2 clinical studies in patients with type 1 diabetes receiving an intra-BM allogeneic islet transplantation: a feasibility study in patients with hepatic contraindications for liver islet allotransplantation receiving a single intra-BM islet infusion (n = 4) and a pilot randomized trial (1:1 allocation using blocks of size 6) in which patients were randomized to receive islets into either the liver (n = 6) or BM (n = 3) to evaluate islet transplant function and survival. RESULTS: We observed no adverse events related to the intrabone injection procedure or the presence of islets in the BM. None of the recipient of an intra-BM allogeneic islet transplantation had a primary nonfunction, as shown by measurable posttransplantation C-peptide levels and histopathological evidence of insulin-producing cells or molecular markers of endocrine tissue in BM biopsy samples collected during follow-up. All patients receiving islets in the BM except 1 lost islet function during the first 4 months after infusion (2 with an early graft loss). Based on biopsies and immunomonitoring, we concluded that the islet loss was primarily caused by the recurrence of autoimmunity. CONCLUSIONS: Bone marrow is not a suitable alternative site for pancreatic islet allotransplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-free survival after extended distal pancreatectomy and islet auto transplantation for benign or borderline/malignant lesions of the pancreas.

Islet autotransplant is particularly attractive to prevent diabetes after extended pancreatectomy for benign or borderline/malignant pancreas disease. Between 2008 and 2018, 25 patients underwent left extended pancreatectomy (>60%) and islet autotransplant for a neoplasm located in the pancreatic neck or proximal body. Overall, disease-free and diabetes-free survivals were estimated and compared with those observed in 68 nondiabetic patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neoplasms without islet autotransplant. Median follow-up was 4 years. We observed no deaths and a low morbidity (nonserious procedure-related complications in 2 of 25 patients). Patient and insulin-independent survival rates at 4 years were 100% and 96%, respectively. Glucose homeostasis remained within a nondiabetic range at all times for 19 (73%) of 25 patients. Preoperative glycemic level and insulin resistance were major predictors of diabetes development in these patients. Patients undergoing islet autotransplant had a longer diabetes-free survival than did patients without islet autotransplant (P = .04). In conclusion, islet autotransplant after extended pancreatic resection for neoplasms is a safe and successful procedure for preventing diabetes.

Salvage Islet Auto Transplantation After Relaparatomy.

BACKGROUND: To assess feasibility, safety, and metabolic outcome of islet auto transplantation (IAT) in patients undergoing completion pancreatectomy because of sepsis or bleeding after pancreatic surgery. METHODS: From November 2008 to October 2016, approximately 22 patients were candidates to salvage IAT during emergency relaparotomy because of postpancreatectomy sepsis (n = 11) or bleeding (n = 11). Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of salvage IAT were compared with those documented in a cohort of 36 patients who were candidate to simultaneous IAT during nonemergency preemptive completion pancreatectomy through the pancreaticoduodenectomy. RESULTS: The percentage of candidates that received the infusion of islets was significantly lower in salvage IAT than simultaneous IAT (59.1% vs 88.9%, P = 0.008), mainly because of a higher rate of inadequate islet preparations. Even if microbial contamination of islet preparation was significantly higher in candidates to salvage IAT than in those to simultaneous IAT (78.9% vs 20%, P < 0.001), there was no evidence of a higher rate of complications related to the procedure. Median follow-up was 5.45 ± 0.52 years. Four (36%) of 11 patients reached insulin independence, 6 patients (56%) had partial graft function, and 1 patient (9%) had primary graft nonfunction. At the last follow-up visit, median fasting C-peptide was 0.43 (0.19-0.93) ng/mL; median insulin requirement was 0.38 (0.04-0.5) U/kg per day, and median HbA1c was 6.6% (5.9%-8.1%). Overall mortality, in-hospital mortality, metabolic outcome, graft survival, and insulin-free survival after salvage IAT were not different from those documented after simultaneous IAT. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of salvage IAT after relaparotomy.

Calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppressive regimen in type 1 diabetes patients receiving islet transplantation: single-group phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Our final objective is to develop an adoptive therapy with tolerogenic donor-specific type 1 T regulatory cells for patients with type 1 diabetes undergoing islet transplantation. The achievement of this objective depends on the availability of an immunosuppressive treatment compatible with the survival, function, and expansion of type 1 T regulatory cells. METHODS: For this purpose, we designed a single-group, phase 1 to 2 trial with an immunosuppression protocol including: (i) rapamycin treatment before the first islet infusion (starting ≥ 30 days before transplantation); (ii) induction therapy with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) instead of anti-interleukin-2Ra monoclonal antibody (after the first islet infusion only); (iii) short-term treatment with steroids and interleukin-1Ra (right before and for 2 weeks after each infusion); rapamycin+mycophenolate mofetil treatment as maintenance therapy. The target enrollment was 10 patients. RESULTS: Ten of 15 patients who started the pretransplant rapamycin treatment completed it. Nine of 10 patients did not complete the induction therapy with ATG, and three of 10 required adaptation of maintenance immunosuppression caused by side effects. Four of 10 patients acquired insulin independence which can be maintained up to year 3 after last infusion. All six other patients have lost their graft, and the early graft loss was associated with lower dose of ATG during induction. CONCLUSION: This protocol resulted feasible, safe but less efficient in maintaining graft survival during the time than other T-cell depletion-based protocols. An adequate induction at the first infusion should be considered to improve the overall clinical outcome.

Extending indications for islet autotransplantation in pancreatic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess metabolic and oncologic outcomes of islet autotransplantation (IAT) in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery for either benign or malignant disease. BACKGROUND: IAT is performed to improve glycemic control after extended pancreatectomy, almost exclusively in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Limited experience is available for other indications or in patients with pancreatic malignancy. METHODS: In addition to chronic pancreatitis, indications for IAT were grade C pancreatic fistula (treated with completion or left pancreatectomy, as indicated); total pancreatectomy as an alternative to high-risk anastomosis during pancreaticoduodenectomy; and distal pancreatectomy for benign/borderline neoplasm of pancreatic body-neck. Malignancy was not an exclusion criterion. Metabolic and oncologic follow-up is presented. RESULTS: From November 2008 to June 2012, 41 patients were candidates to IAT (accounting for 7.5% of all pancreatic resections). Seven of 41 did not receive transplantation for inadequate islet mass (4 pts), patient instability (2 pts), or contamination of islet culture (1 pt). IAT-related complications occurred in 8 pts (23.5%): 4 bleeding, 3 portal thromboses (1 complete, 2 partial), and 1 sepsis. Median follow-up was 546 days. Fifteen of 34 patients (44%) reached insulin independence, 16 patients (47%) had partial graft function, 2 patients (6%) had primary graft nonfunction, and 1 patient (3%) had early graft loss. Seventeen IAT recipients had malignancy (pancreatic or periampullary adenocarcinoma in 14). Two of them had already liver metastases at surgery, 13 were disease-free at last follow-up, and none of 2 patients with tumor recurrence developed metastases in the transplantation site. CONCLUSIONS: Although larger data are needed to definitely exclude the risk of disease dissemination, the present study suggests that IAT indications can be extended to selected patients with neoplasm.

CXCR1/2 inhibition enhances pancreatic islet survival after transplantation.

Although long considered a promising treatment option for type 1 diabetes, pancreatic islet cell transformation has been hindered by immune system rejection of engrafted tissue. The identification of pathways that regulate post-transplant detrimental inflammatory events would improve management and outcome of transplanted patients. Here, we found that CXCR1/2 chemokine receptors and their ligands are crucial negative determinants for islet survival after transplantation. Pancreatic islets released abundant CXCR1/2 ligands (CXCL1 and CXCL8). Accordingly, intrahepatic CXCL1 and circulating CXCL1 and CXCL8 were strongly induced shortly after islet infusion. Genetic and pharmacological blockade of the CXCL1-CXCR1/2 axis in mice improved intrahepatic islet engraftment and reduced intrahepatic recruitment of polymorphonuclear leukocytes and NKT cells after islet infusion. In humans, the CXCR1/2 allosteric inhibitor reparixin improved outcome in a phase 2 randomized, open-label pilot study with a single infusion of allogeneic islets. These findings indicate that the CXCR1/2-mediated pathway is a regulator of islet damage and should be a target for intervention to improve the efficacy of transplantation.

Kidney function after islet transplant alone in type 1 diabetes: impact of immunosuppressive therapy on progression of diabetic nephropathy.

OBJECTIVE: Islet transplantation alone is an alternative for the replacement of pancreatic endocrine function in patients with type 1 diabetes. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the Edmonton immunosuppressive protocol (tacrolimus-sirolimus association) on kidney function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with type 1 diabetes and metabolic instability received islet transplantation alone and immunosuppressive therapy according to the Edmonton protocol. Serum creatinine (sCr), creatinine clearance (CrCl), and 24-h urinary protein excretion (UPE) were assessed at baseline and during a follow-up of 339 patient-months. RESULTS: After islet transplantation we observed 1) sCr within the normal range in all but two patients in whom sCr increased immediately after islet transplantation, and despite withdrawal of immunosuppression, patients progressed to end-stage renal disease (ESRD); 2) CrCl remained within the normal range for those patients who had normal baseline values and decreased, progressing to ESRD in two patients with a decreased baseline CrCl; and 3) 24-h UPE worsened (>300 mg/24 h) in four patients. In the two patients who progressed to ESRD, the worsening of 24-h UPE occurred immediately after islet transplantation. In one patient 24-h UPE worsening occurred at 18 months, and, after withdrawal of immunosuppression, it returned to the normal range. In another patient 24-h UPE increased at 24 months and remained stable while immunosuppression was continued. CONCLUSIONS: In type 1 diabetic patients receiving islet transplantation alone, the association of tacrolimus and sirolimus should be used only in patients with normal kidney function. Alternative options for immunosuppressive treatment should be considered for patients with even a mild decrease of kidney function.