Renal transplant across an ABO barrier

A 24 year-old ESRD patient secondary to IgA nephropathy has been on HD for almost one year. His mother is a potential donor for living related kidney transplant. The condition seemed perfect—zero mismatch on HLA, no PRA, no DSA—except for ABO-incompatibility. Type O in the recipient and type A in the donor.

What are ABO antigens, and where are they expressed?
 ABO antigens, discovered by Karl Landsteiner in 1901, are glycoprotein antigens, expressed not only on the surface of red blood cells, but also on endothelial cells, and epithelial cells.

Why is ABO incompatibility a relative contraindication to transplantation? 
As noted above, ABO antigens are expressed on the donor kidney, and can be a target of antibody-mediated rejection. The first ABO-incompatible kidney transplant (ABOi KT) was performed in mid 1950s and ended up with hyperacute rejection (HAR). Therefore, this procedure was considered as a contraindication until recently. The concept of depleting anti-AB Abs was introduced in early 1980s, leading to successful ABOi KT by Alexandre et al., followed by great effort in Japan to improve outcomes, where ABOi KT now consists of 30% of living donor KT. Nowadays, ABOi KT is becoming a reasonable option in the US as well.

What is the usual immunosuppressive protocol to transplant these patients? Are ABO antibody titers important for determining the feasibility of transplant? 
Unfortunately, there are no randomized controlled trials for the pre-transplant conditioning regimens for ABOi KT. However, the basic idea of overcoming ABO-incompatibility is decreasing the circulating ABO antibodies via combination of (1) antibody depletion (e.g. plasmaphresis) (2) IVIG, (3) Rituximab or splenectomy. Pre-transplant ABO antibody titers should be taken into consideration, which generally should be 1:16 or lower, although the number is exclusively based on empirical evidence. Interestingly, there may be no correlation with baseline antibody titers and graft survivals. For maintenance immunosuppressive regimen, therapy, there is no need for higher intensity of immunosuppression compared to ABO compatible KT.

What are the potential complications?
Initially, HAR was the largest concern for ABOi KT, but is not major concern with the use of current desensitization protocols . Antibody-mediated hemolysis and delayed antibody-mediated rejection are potential complications. Therefore, post-transplant monitoring of AB antibody titers is usually recommended. Of note, however, in the setting of ABOi KT, peritubular capillary C4d deposition alone is not diagnostic as this can be observed even in 80% of fully functioning grafts, called “accommodation”, the mechanism of which is not fully understood.

How good are the long-term outcomes of transplants crossing an ABO barrier? 
Reports showed long-term graft survival of ABO-incompatible renal transplants are the same as those of ABO-matched transplants. One report from Japan showed that the overall patient survival rate was 97% for the first year and 95%, 93% and 90% for 3, 5 and 9 years after surgery, respectively. The 1-year graft survival rate was 93%, and that for 3, 5 and 9 years was 89%, 84%, and 72%, respectively. Of note, Montgomery et al.  reported no difference in long-term patient survival but suggested more graft loss in the first 14 days after transplantation.

Going back to our case, the patient went through plasmapheresis and two doses of rituximab injections (150 mg/m2, on POD #-14 and -1) as a pre-conditioning regimen. This was followed by a successful ABOi KT using Basiliximab as induction therapy, FK/MMF/Prednisone as maintenance regimen with excellent graft function months after transplant.

Naoka Murakami
Leonardo V. Riella

Vascular rejection – Reassessing its etiology

Vascular rejection has been traditionally considered a severe form of acute rejection characterized by infiltration of mononuclear cells beneath the endothelium or by the presence of arteritis. Though initially reported as an aggressive form of T-cell mediated rejection with poor response to T-cell targeted therapy, newer findings suggest a strong association with alloantibodies. 

 Study from France analyzed 302 patients with biopsy-proven rejection and identified 4 subtypes of acute rejection with different outcomes (Figure): T-cell-mediated vascular rejection (9%), antibody-mediated vascular rejection (21%), T-cell-mediated rejection without vasculitis (46%), and antibody-mediated rejection without vasculitis (24%). Antibody-mediated vascular rejection manifested a median of 1.1 months (0.4–4.4) post-transplant and had the worst prognosis of the four subtypes. Moreover, 71% of cases of vascular rejection, which were mostly graded as v1 and v2 arteritis by the Banff schema, were associated with donor-specific antibodies (DSA). 

Therefore, it seems that the majority of cases of vascular rejection are associated with DSA and therapies to remove and decrease alloantibody production may be warranted. Indeed, this study suggested that antibody-directed treatment involving plasmapheresis, IVIG and rituximab led to better outcomes in this subpopulation. As of today, v1 and v2 vascular lesions are not accounted by the Banff classification in the antibody-mediated rejection category. 

Alloantibodies may bind to endothelium antigens and activate complement, attracting mononuclear cells which express Fc and adherence receptors, initiating the process of vascular infiltration. 

How will this affect our practice? Whenever a biopsy shows a component of vascular rejection, one must send the serum for alloantibody testing, even if biopsy is not classic for antibody-mediated rejection. Furthermore, antibody-directed treatment strategies should be considered, in particular if no response to initial therapy and evidence of DSA. The ideal treatment of the different severities of vascular rejection still remain to be determined.

Medication Nonadherence in Renal Transplantation: Barriers and Consequences

It is surprising how high the nonadherence rates for immunosuppressants is among renal transplant recipients, ranging from 15 to 40%, despite the potential impact of nonadherence and the degree of education provided to transplant recipients.

Nonadherence to immunosuppressive medications is associated with increased incidences of allograft rejection and a seven-fold increased risk of graft failure as compared to adherent patients. Approximately 20-25% of nonadherent renal transplant recipients develop a late rejection at five years posttransplant, frequently antibody-mediated, as compared to 5-8% of adherent patients. Even a short period of nonadherence to immunosuppressive medications can initiate the rejection process.

Identifying possible barriers to adherence and intervening accordingly is necessary for improving transplant outcomes. One of the well-studied barriers is the complexity of the immunosuppressive regimen. Choosing a simpler regimen among possible effective regimens is likely to provide convenience to patients and; therefore, improve adherence. In addition, forgetfulness is one of the most common causes of missed doses. Nonadherence is more prevalent in patients with comorbidities that can cause impaired cognitive function. 

Some interventions to improve adherence include: associating medication administration times with a daily activity (such as meals, waking up, or going to bed), using pill boxes, and setting alarms or voice reminders that help patients remember to take their medications at the right times.

Ineffective communication may also increase the probability of intentional nonadherence due to a poor understanding of the benefits and risks associated with the patients’ prescribed medications. Most medications used in the transplant setting are preventive, and patients do not perceive the benefits of the medications immediately, which may facilitate nonadherence. Although fear of developing side effects can complicate patients’ nonadherence, patients are more likely to be adherent to a medication when they are aware of its possible adverse effects, which highlights the importance of educating patients. High drug costs can limit patients’ access to medications and increase nonadherence rates. Even with Medicare part B coverage, there are significant copays for patients without secondary insurance. Also, even if patients have prescription drug coverage, the high number of medications needed for some transplant patients can result in high monthly out-of-pocket expenses. This ongoing financial burden is substantial for most patients, and could act as a barrier to adherence when it is not addressed and adjusted. 

It is imperative for renal transplant recipients to adhere to medication regimens, as it can directly affect outcomes. Clinicians should assess adherence at every follow-up and keep in mind possible barriers to medication adherence, in particular, complexity of regimen, financial burden and lack of knowledge of potential consequences of nonadherence.

Miae Kim, PharmD, PGY2 Resident in Transplant Pharmacy

Steven Gabardi PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, Organ Transplant Clinical Specialist at BWH

Antibody-Mediated Rejection: Choose your weapons

Acute humoral or antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is attributed to the presence of alloantibodies against the graft, which could be either antibodies against human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) Class I and/or II , non-HLA antigens or endothelial antigens. Diagnosis of AMR is made through tissue biopsy and presence of alloantibodies. Early treatment is of paramount for the preservation of graft function. Treatment strategies include removal of alloantibodies, decreasing or stopping production of alloantibodies, or attenuating the immune systems response to alloantibodies. 

Plasmapheresis/Plasma Exchange 

Removal of alloantibodies is done through the use of plasmapheresis/plasma exchange or immunoadsorption. Plasmapheresis, or removal and replacement of one plasma volume, is effective at removing approximately 60% of the intravascular IgG which accounts for about 75% of the intravascular immune response. Extravascular IgG equilibrates in about 48 hours thus reducing total body IgG concentrations and reducing the effective immune response. Immunoadsorption works similarly to plasmapheresis except that plasma immune complexes and IgG are removed via protein A bound silica matrices. In the latter, the remaining plasma components are returned to the patient without the need for plasma exchange. FFP is needed even on the first run of plasmapheresis if recent biopsy was performed (prevention of bleeding). The cost of 5 treatments is about $4,600. 

Intravenous Immune Globulin 

Infusion of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) has been studied at doses of 10 grams to 2 gm/kg as monotherapy or in conjunction with plasmapheresis or B-cell depleting agents. The mechanism of action is not entirely known but it is thought that neutralization of alloantibodies occurs when bound by the anti-idiotypic antibodies in IVIG as well as diminished plasma cell production by increasing total body concentrations of immunoglobulins and direct T-cell and complement cascade effects. Cost for IVIG is $77.06/gm resulting in $770.60 or $10,788.40 (dose intensity), based on a 70kg patient for each dose. 

Decreasing or stopping the production of alloantibodies requires therapies directed against mature plasma cells, memory B-cells or plasmablasts. Targeting memory B-cells or plasmablasts has a delayed onset of action as this therapy prevents new plasma cells from being formed but does not affect currently active ones. 

Rituximab 

A chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, is dosed 375 mg/m2 or 1000 mg IV and given for one to two doses. The CD20 receptor is found on the surface of B-lymphocytes, including memory B-cells and immature plasmablasts, but not plasma cells. Rituximab has cytotoxic activity directly reducing B-lymphocyte and antibody levels. Cost for therapy ranges from $4,923.78 for dosing based on normal body surface area to $7,589.64 for a 1000mg dose. 

Bortezomib 

A proteasome inhibitor, is dosed 1.3 mg/m2 IV and given for four doses on days 1, 4, 8, and 11. Proteasome inhibition prevents protein biosynthesis resulting in apoptosis of the plasma cell and cessation of alloantibody production. Cost per dose based on a normal body surface area is $1,134.27. 

Eculizumab 

A humanized monoclonal antibody directed against C5, is dosed 600mg to 1200mg IV and administered weekly depending on alloantibody concentrations. Prevention of AMR is mediated by inhibition of membrane attack complex formation and halting activation of the complement cascade. Eculizumab is supplied as a 300mg vial for $6,638.40 or $13,276.80 to $26,553.60 per dose. 

Increasing the dose of maintenance immunosuppressive agents, including calcineurin inhibitors, antimetabolites, and steroids are also used to attenuate the immune system and help alleviate AMR. With all of the available treatment options, a multimodal approach is usually recommended to maximize chances of preventing graft injury. However, as you might see from the numbers above, careful clinical decision must be based on both efficacy and cost in order to responsibly avoid collapsing our already broken health care system. Instead of each center using its on protocol, our society should get together and perform a randomized trial with those interventions. Though I doubt this will happen any time soon, in particular with all the NIH budget cuts...

David Reardon, PharmD, PGY2 Critical Care Resident

Steve Gabardi, PharmD

Leonardo V Riella MD PhD (editing role)