Preemptive treatment of de novo donor-specific antibodies in lung transplant patients reduces subsequent risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction or death.

The development of donor-specific antibodies after lung transplantation is associated with downstream acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), or death. It is unknown whether preemptive (early) treatment of de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSAs), in the absence of clinical signs and symptoms of allograft dysfunction, reduces the risk of subsequent CLAD or death. We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study to determine if early treatment of dnDSAs in lung transplant patients reduces the risk of the composite endpoint of CLAD or death. In the cohort of 445 patients, 145 patients developed dnDSAs posttransplant. Thirty patients received early targeted treatment for dnDSAs in the absence of clinical signs and symptoms of AMR. Early treatment of dnDSAs was associated with a decreased risk of CLAD or death (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.76; P < .01). Deferring treatment until the development of clinical AMR was associated with an increased risk of CLAD or death (hazard ratio, 3.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-6.18; P < .01). This study suggests that early, preemptive treatment of donor-specific antibodies in lung transplant patients may reduce the subsequent risk of CLAD or death.

Clinical features and allograft failure rates of pulmonary antibody-mediated rejection categories.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) consensus criteria categorize AMR by diagnostic certainty. This study aims to define the clinical features and associated outcomes of these recently defined AMR categories. METHODS: Adjudication committees reviewed clinical data of 335 lung transplant recipients to define clinical or subclinical AMR based on the presence of allograft dysfunction, and the primary endpoints, time from transplant to allograft failure, a composite endpoint of chronic lung allograft dysfunction and/or death. Clinical AMR was subcategorized based on diagnostic certainty as definite, probable or possible AMR if 4, 3, or 2 characteristic features were present, respectively. Allograft injury was assessed via plasma donor-derived cell-free DNA (ddcfDNA). Risk of allograft failure and allograft injury was compared for AMR categories using regression models. RESULTS: Over the 38.5 months follow-up, 28.7% of subjects developed clinical AMR (n = 96), 18.5% developed subclinical AMR (n = 62) or 58.3% were no AMR (n = 177). Clinical AMR showed higher risk of allograft failure and ddcfDNA levels compared to subclinical or no AMR. Clinical AMR included definite/probable (n = 21) or possible AMR (n = 75). These subcategories showed similar clinical characteristics, ddcfDNA levels, and risk of allograft failure. However, definite/probable AMR showed greater measures of AMR severity, including degree of allograft dysfunction and risk of death compared to possible AMR. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical AMR showed greater risk of allograft failure than subclinical AMR or no AMR. Subcategorization of clinical AMR based on diagnostic certainty correlated with AMR severity and risk of death, but not with the risk of allograft failure.

ISHLT consensus document on lung transplantation in patients with connective tissue disease: Part III: Pharmacology, medical and surgical management of post-transplant extrapulmonary conditions statements.

Patients with connective tissues disease (CTD) are often on immunomodulatory agents before lung transplantation (LTx). Till now, there's no consensus on the safety of using these agents perioperative and post-transplant. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation-supported consensus document on LTx in patients with CTD addresses the risk and contraindications of perioperative and post-transplant management of the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), kinase inhibitor DMARD, and biologic agents used for LTx candidates with underlying CTD, and the recommendations and management of non-gastrointestinal extrapulmonary manifestations, and esophageal disorders by medical and surgical approaches for CTD transplant recipients.

Report from the 2018 consensus conference on immunomodulating agents in thoracic transplantation: Access, formulations, generics, therapeutic drug monitoring, and special populations.

In 2009, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation recognized the importance and challenges surrounding generic drug immunosuppression. As experience with generics has expanded and comfort has increased, substantial issues have arisen since that time with other aspects of immunomodulation that have not been addressed, such as access to medicines, alternative immunosuppression formulations, additional generics, implications on therapeutic drug monitoring, and implications for special populations such as pediatrics and older adults. The aim of this consensus document is to address critically each of these concerns, expand on the challenges and barriers, and provide therapeutic considerations for practitioners who manage patients who need to undergo or have undergone cardiothoracic transplantation.

Single-center experience with use of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis or treatment in thoracic organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in thoracic organ transplant recipients. Valganciclovir and ganciclovir are used for both prophylaxis and treatment of this infection, but intolerance and treatment failure are common. Letermovir has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of CMV infection when used for prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. However, there are no data on its efficacy in thoracic organ transplantation. METHODS: We examined the use of letermovir for either CMV prophylaxis (primary and secondary) or treatment in heart and lung transplant recipients at our institution from February 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. RESULTS: Nine total patients received letermovir at our institution (8 lung transplant, 1 heart transplant) during the study period. Letermovir was prescribed for CMV prophylaxis in eight patients (primary prophylaxis in two patients and secondary prophylaxis in 6 patients), and for treatment of CMV DNAemia in two cases. One patient received letermovir for both secondary prophylaxis and treatment on separate occasions. Three out of 8 (37.5%) patients receiving letermovir for prophylaxis developed CMV DNAemia during prophylaxis. One patient treated for CMV disease had clinical failure with a sharp rise in serum CMV DNA PCR. The other patient treated for low-grade CMV DNAemia initially had a slight rise in CMV DNA PCR, but has since had a sustained response. No major side effects were experienced, and 2 patients reported minor side effects. CONCLUSION: Letermovir was well tolerated with only minor side effects reported; however, the rate of development of CMV DNAemia on prophylaxis was considerable. Further study of the dosing and efficacy of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis or treatment in thoracic organ transplant recipients is warranted.

Late manifestation of alloantibody-associated injury and clinical pulmonary antibody-mediated rejection: Evidence from cell-free DNA analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) often progresses to poor health outcomes in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). This, combined with the relatively insensitive clinical tools used for its diagnosis (spirometry, histopathology) led us to determine whether clinical AMR is diagnosed significantly later than its pathologic onset. In this study, we leveraged the high sensitivity of donor-derived cell-free DNA (ddcfDNA), a novel genomic tool, to detect early graft injury after lung transplantation. METHODS: We adjudicated AMR and acute cellular rejection (ACR) in 157 LTRs using the consensus criteria of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). We assessed the kinetics of allograft injury in relation to ACR or AMR using both clinical criteria (decline in spirometry from baseline) and molecular criteria (ddcfDNA); percent ddcfDNA was quantitated via shotgun sequencing. We used a mixed-linear model to assess the relationship between and ddcfDNA levels and donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in AMR+ LTRs. RESULTS: Compared with ACR, AMR episodes (n = 42) were associated with significantly greater allograft injury when assessed by both spirometric (0.1 liter vs -0.6 liter, p < 0.01) and molecular (ddcfDNA) analysis (1.1% vs 5.4%, p < 0.001). Allograft injury detected by ddcfDNA preceded clinical AMR diagnosis by a median of 2.8 months. Within the same interval, spirometry or histopathology did not reveal findings of allograft injury or dysfunction. Elevated levels of ddcfDNA before clinical diagnosis of AMR were associated with a concurrent rise in DSA levels. CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of clinical AMR in LTRs lags behind DSA-associated molecular allograft injury as assessed by ddcfDNA.

Induction therapy in heart transplantation: where are we now?

Although induction therapy has been used in heart transplantation for many years, its role has not been fully elucidated. Early safety concerns relating to OKT3 or intensive lymphocyte-depleting regimens have largely been addressed by modern induction protocols using rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG [Thymoglobuline(®) or ATG-Fresenius]) and interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2RA) agents, but although the number of randomized controlled studies has expanded there are still gaps in the evidence base. Rejection prophylaxis may be somewhat more effective with rATG than IL-2RA agents, but this has not been proven conclusively. Administration of induction therapy to support delayed introduction of calcineurin inhibitors in patients at risk of renal dysfunction is relatively well documented and widely used. Increasingly, it is recognized that sensitized patients and individuals with primary graft function are suitable candidates for induction therapy, and the possibility that rATG may inhibit cardiac allograft vasculopathy is also of considerable interest. Until the question of whether rATG is associated with increased risk of infection, routine prophylaxis is advisable. IL-2RA induction has an excellent safety profile. Dosing rATG according to lymphocyte count reduces cumulative dose without compromising efficacy. Further controlled trials are required to determine when and how to deploy induction most effectively following heart transplantation.

Current strategies and future trends in immunosuppression after heart transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Current immunosuppressive drugs have provided excellent outcomes after heart transplantation. However, more patients suffer from long-term complications of these drugs. A series of prospective randomized trials has been conducted and has offered disparate results. This report reviews the challenges of immunosuppressive therapy during the past decade, describes recent reports and explores potential future trends in immunosuppressive protocols in heart transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: The traditional combination of cyclosporine, azathioprine and steroids has been changed to tacrolimus (Tac) or cyclosporine in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroids due to the results of several trials. The use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in combination with Tac or cyclosporine A has not shown a clear benefit compared with MMF. All different combinations have shown some positive effects counteracted by side-effects and negative synergism of combinations. Future protocols need to be adapted according to individual patient's needs and risks. SUMMARY: The changing population of heart transplantation patients has become older and sicker. Immunosuppression strategies should be developed for each patient based on their risk for rejection and their risk for developing important complications of immunosuppressive therapy.

Increased rejection rates in cardiac transplant associated with dexamethasone.

BACKGROUND: Peri-operative immunosuppression in cardiac transplantation includes the use of intravenous methylprednisolone. During a national shortage, intravenous dexamethasone was substituted for methylprednisolone at standard equivalencies. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone are used interchangeably in many clinical settings; however, their equivalency has not been demonstrated. METHODS: Forty-two consecutive cardiac transplant patients were studied retrospectively. All patients received standard triple immunosuppression. Eighteen patients received dexamethasone and 24 methylprednisolone. Twelve patients were included for comparison after the methylprednisolone shortage resolved. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) results graded as > or =1B (ISHLT classification) were considered positive for acute cellular rejection. RESULTS: More patients who received dexamethasone as induction had cellular rejection (12/17; (70%) vs. 14/33; (42%); p=0.05). Four patients were excluded because of deaths unrelated to cardiac function. The increased rate of rejection seen during dexamethasone substitution declined after reinstitution of methylprednisolone (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-operative high-dose dexamethasone in cardiac transplants was associated with higher rates of acute cellular rejection. The equivalencies of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone differ from accepted standards when used in pulse doses. Peri-operative use of glucocorticoids may rely on mechanisms that are different from those considered in the standard equivalency measures. Pulse doses of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone in transplantation may not be interchangeable at standard equivalencies.

Antiviral dosing and efficacy for prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

PURPOSE: The implications of the findings from clinical studies and pharmacokinetic analyses of the antiviral agent valganciclovir for dosing of the drug to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in solid organ transplant recipients are reviewed. SUMMARY: Valganciclovir, an oral prodrug of ganciclovir, is as effective as oral ganciclovir for preventing CMV disease, although prophylaxis with either agent may delay CMV disease. Dosage reduction is required for both drugs in patients with renal impairment to prevent high plasma ganciclovir concentrations and toxicity. A valganciclovir dosage of 900 mg/day is required in patients with normal renal function, especially those at high risk for CMV disease, to provide adequate systemic ganciclovir exposure. Some studies suggest that a lower dosage might suffice for patients at a low risk for CMV disease. CONCLUSION: Valganciclovir dosing should be based on renal function to avoid toxicity.