- Frontiers in Immunology. 2021; 12:676175.
Background: Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) induces immunological changes that lead to a reduced risk of transplant rejection. The aim of the present study was to determine optimum conditions for ECP treatment by analyzing a variety of tolerance-inducing immune cells to optimize the treatment. Methods: Ten ECP treatments were applied to each of 17 heart-transplant patients from month 3 to month 9 post-HTx. Blood samples were taken at baseline, three times during treatment, and four months after the last ECP treatment. The abundance of subsets of tolerance-inducing regulatory T cells (Tregs) and dendritic cells (DCs) in the samples was determined by flow cytometry. A multivariate statistical model describing the immunological status of rejection-free heart transplanted patients was used to visualize the patient-specific immunological improvement induced by ECP. Results: All BDCA+ DC subsets (BDCA1+ DCs: p < 0.01, BDCA2+ DCs: p < 0.01, BDCA3+ DCs: p < 0.01, BDCA4+ DCs: p < 0.01) as well as total Tregs (p < 0.01) and CD39+ Tregs (p < 0.01) increased during ECP treatment, while CD62L+ Tregs decreased (p < 0.01). The cell surface expression level of BDCA1 (p < 0.01) and BDCA4 (p < 0.01) on DCs as well as of CD120b (p < 0.01) on Tregs increased during the study period, while CD62L expression on Tregs decreased significantly (p = 0.04). The cell surface expression level of BDCA2 (p = 0.47) and BDCA3 (p = 0.22) on DCs as well as of CD39 (p = 0.14) and CD147 (p = 0.08) on Tregs remained constant during the study period. A cluster analysis showed that ECP treatment led to a sustained immunological improvement. Conclusions: We developed an immune monitoring assay for ECP treatment after heart transplantation by analyzing changes in tolerance-inducing immune cells. This assay allowed differentiation of patients who did and did not show immunological improvement. Based on these results, we propose classification criteria that may allow optimization of the duration of ECP treatment. Copyright © 2021 Dieterlen, Klaeske, Bernhardt, Borger, Klein, Garbade, Lehmann, Ayuk, Reichenspurner and Barten.
BACKGROUND:
There is no standard definition for “HLA incompatible” transplants. For the first time, we systematically assessed how HLA incompatibility was defined in contemporary peer-reviewed publications and its prognostic implication to transplant outcomes.
Â
METHODS:
We combined 2 independent searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2015 to 2019. Content-expert reviewers screened for original research on outcomes of HLA-incompatible transplants (defined as allele or molecular mismatch and solid-phase or cell-based assays). We ascertained the completeness of reporting on a predefined set of variables assessing HLA incompatibility, therapies, and outcomes. Given significant heterogeneity, we conducted narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias in studies examining the association between death-censored graft failure and HLA incompatibility.
Â
RESULTS:
Of 6656 screened articles, 163 evaluated transplant outcomes by HLA incompatibility. Most articles reported on cytotoxic/flow T-cell crossmatches (n = 98). Molecular genotypes were reported for selected loci at the allele-group level. Sixteen articles reported on epitope compatibility. Pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies were often considered (n = 143); yet there was heterogeneity in sample handling, assay procedure, and incomplete reporting on donor-specific HLA antibodies assignment. Induction (n = 129) and maintenance immunosuppression (n = 140) were frequently mentioned but less so rejection treatment (n = 72) and desensitization (n = 70). Studies assessing death-censored graft failure risk by HLA incompatibility were vulnerable to bias in the participant, predictor, and analysis domains.
Â
CONCLUSIONS:
Optimization of transplant outcomes and personalized care depends on accurate HLA compatibility assessment. Reporting on a standard set of variables will help assess generalizability of research, allow knowledge synthesis, and facilitate international collaboration in clinical trials.
Â
Â
