Showing posts with label immunosuppressive therapy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immunosuppressive therapy. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Steroid use in Kidney Transplantation - The Hope of Harmony

Presently, death with a functioning graft is one of the most important causes of kidney transplant failure with the leading cause of death being from cardiovascular events. Withdrawing or avoiding steroids to improve cardiovascular outcomes is a controversial issue.
Most patients receiving a renal transplant will have long term immunosuppression regimes including tacrolimus, mycophenolate and corticosteroids, as per the ELITE-Symphony trial.  Corticosteroids have been used since the beginning of organ transplantation to reduce the risk of acute rejection. However their use is well known to cause insulin resistance and increasing cardiovascular risk and clearly there is a balance to be struck. Avoidance or early cessation of corticosteroids post-transplant is an attractive option. A trial of 386 patient randomized to withdrawal at 7 days or continuation of steroids showed improved metabolic parameters (triglycerides, gained less weight) at the expense of more acute rejection and more worryingly, chronic allograft injury. A Cochrane review published in 2016 concluded that both avoidance and early withdrawal of steroids substantially increases the risk of acute rejection by 58% and 77% respectively, without long term benefits in mortality or side effects, such as infection or diabetes. The review therefore concluded that steroids should be part of long term immunosuppression in all but specific subgroups of patients.
The HARMONY trial, published in January 2017, cast the spotlight on this subject again. This open-label, European, randomised controlled trial was set up and powered to investigate whether induction therapy with rabbit Anti-Thymocyte Globulin (ATG) was superior to basiliximab with respect to frequency of biopsy proven acute rejection rates in the situation of rapid steroid withdrawal. Patients were predominantly on their first transplant and had low immunological risk.  The study had three arms with patients randomly assigned to:
  •        Basiliximab, tacrolimus, MMF and steroid maintenance
  •        Basiliximab, tacrolimus, MMF and steroid withdrawal on day 8
  •        Rabbit ATG, tacrolimus, MMF and steroid withdrawal on day 8.
Acute rejection rates were low (10-11%) and comparable between all three study arms at 12 months. The study therefore concluded that rapid steroid withdrawal was possible without ATG induction in this low risk setting. Furthermore, there was significantly lower rates of NODAT in the two rapid steroid withdrawal groups; Arm A 39.%, Arm B 23.9%, Arm C 22.7% [p=0.0004]. It has to be noted that the rates of NODAT in the control group were considerably higher than those found in the ELITE-Symphony trial and probably reflects the active investigation for NODAT in this trial as opposed to the self-reporting method used in ELITE-Symphony (see NephJC coverage of HARMONY).
It has yet to be seen whether these results translate into longer term reduced cardiovascular risk and mortality. Also as follow-up was only 1 year and late graft injury is a concern with steroid withdrawal, we eagerly await the longer term results of this trial. For now this trial has challenged previous evidence and provided hope that steroid free immunosuppression is possible, and perhaps beneficial, in a low risk setting.

Post by Anna Kolb, Nephrology Fellow at Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

Friday, January 12, 2018

Azathioprine Toxicity

Azathioprine is one of the oldest immunosuppressant medications, which has been used in the field of solid organ transplantation over the past 5 decades. It is metabolized into its inactive forms by the enzyme thiopurine methyltransferease (TPMT). Genetic polymorphisms of the gene coding for this enzyme are common in the general population (~ 10% are heterozygotes causing low enzyme activity and ~ 0.3% cause complete lack enzyme activity). Testing for the enzyme activity is recommended prior to treatment with azathioprine or any thiopurines in children. However, it is not consistently tested for in adult patients who are immunosuppressed with azathioprine for inflammatory bowel disease, organ transplantation or rheumatologic conditions. Genotypic (testing for polymorphisms in the TPMT gene) and phenotypic (measuring levels of substrates and products of the enzyme in RBCs) testing for TPMT are commercially available but the concordance between them is not 100%.

The following are the metabolites that are tested for in the phenotypic testing:
6- Mercaptopurine – (Ref: 3.0- 6.6) nmol/ml/hr
6- Methylmercaptopurine riboside – (Ref: 5.04 – 9.57) nmol/ml/hr
6- Methylthioguanine riboside – (Ref: 2.7 – 5.8) nmol/ml/hr

Phenotypic testing performed within 30-90 days after a blood transfusion can result in inaccurate interpretation of the results because of donor RBCs influencing the test results. Moreover ethnicity, type of disease, concurrent drug treatment, red cell kinetics and transfusions should be taken into account while interpreting the results of TPMT enzyme activity. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) account for the major TPMT low activity variant forms. Four TPMT alleles, TPMT*2, *3A, *3B, and *3C, account for over 90% of inactivating polymorphisms.
The approximate commercial cost is ~ $200 for phenotyping and ~$450 for genotyping. Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) has developed an evidence-based guideline on how to adjust thiopurine doses based on TPMT activity.
Posted by Karthikeyan Venkatachalam
Transplant Fellow
Washington University School of Medicine
St Louis

Friday, December 29, 2017

The ELITE & the Rest in Kidney Transplantation

Image result for cocktail party
The ELITE-Symphony study enshrined standard triple therapy immunosuppression of tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid and prednisolone, for renal transplant recipients. We get familiar with these agents relatively quickly in our renal training, but what about the other less common agents that are used?  Why do we not use them as first line, when should we consider them and what side effects do we need to be aware of?
Sirolimus and everolimus are mTOR inhibitors (see previous RFN post), and prevent cell cycle progression and lymphocyte proliferation.  Their anti-proliferative effects mean they have a role in conditions such as tuberous sclerosis, psoriasis and certain cancers.  The antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects pose issues post-surgery however with poor wound healing and lymphocele formation meaning they should not be used for around 6 months post-transplant.  Other side effects include pneumonitis, hyperlipidaemia, bone marrow suppression, thrombotic microangiopathy and proteinuria due to FSGS-type lesions. Alongside this relatively long list of side effects, the main concern with sirolimus is related to mortality. A meta-analysis of 21 studies with a total of 5876 patients showed sirolimus was  associated with increased mortality post-transplant, mainly from cardiovascular and infectious complications (adjusted hazard ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.21-1.71). So why do some patients end up on sirolimus?  The same meta-analysis showed that sirolimus is associated with a 40% reduced risk of malignancy, particularly in non-melanoma skin cancers. The most common reasons for switching to mTORi are malignancy, often recurrent skin cancers, and for calcineurin-inhibitor (CNI) induced injury (although if eGFR<40mls/min or overt proteinuria outcomes are likely to be poor or no better with a switch). Moreover, as seen in ELITE-Symphony and other, acute rejection rates and patient dropouts are consistently higher with mTORi compared to CNIs.
Image result for belatacept mechanismAnother agent we may be hearing more about in the future is belatacept: a co-stimulation pathway blocker. It is attractive as it is designed to replace the CNI in the treatment regime. It binds to CD80 and CD86 on antigen-presenting cells, thereby blocking CD28 mediated activation of T Cells. It is administered as an IV infusion every 4-6 weeks alongside steroid and an anti-metabolite.
The BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT (extended criteria donors) trials compared high and low intensity belatacept regimes with cyclosporine in non-sensitised recipients undergoing DBD or living donor renal transplants. Over 7 years of follow-up, they found improved patient and graft survival with belatacept in BENEFIT and better measured GFR and reduced formation of DSA with belatacept in both studies. There was an increased incidence of acute rejection in BENEFIT although this obviously didn’t translate into inferior outcomes. There were also initial concerns regarding a small increase in cases of PTLD in EBV seronegative recipients although longer term data was reassuring that the overall risk of this was very low.
A potential benefit of belatacept is it’s a directly observed therapy, so compliance will be known. Although it is expensive, if patients experience improved graft outcomes then any longer term savings need to be considered. However what about patients who are highly sensitised? Many patients we want to avoid CNIs in are sensitised but here is a dearth of data in using belatacept in this circumstance. Moreover, the studies compared belatacept to cyclosporine, not tacrolimus, the current standard of care. Currently belatacept is not available for new patients due to supply issues, another issue likely preventing its more widespread use.  
Post by Ailish Nimmo

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Stop-IgA: Immunosuppression for proteinuric IgA Nephropathy

Despite being the world’s most common form of glomerulonephritis, IgA Nephropathy treatment strategies have hereto been controversial, particularly surrounding the use of immnosuppression on top of traditional RAAS blockade. The long awaited, Intensive Supportive Care plus Immunosuppression in IgA Nephropathy (STOP-IgAN) in this month’s New England Journal of Medicine set out to clarify this issue.
Study Design and Methods: 337 patients aged 18-70 were enrolled into this multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial.  Key inclusion criteria included biopsy proven IgA Nephropathy, 0.75g/day proteinuria, together with hypertension (defined as ≥140/90), impaired renal function (eGFR<90ml/min) or both.
All patients underwent an initial six month period of supportive care which included maximal recommended or tolerated RAAS blockade, cholesterol lowering with statins and smoking cessation advice.  At the end of this period those with proteinuria between 0.75 and 3.5g per litre were eligible for randomisation into immunosuppression or continuation of supportive care groups. This is important as previous studies have discontinued RAAS inhibition before recruitment.
Allowing for dropout and exclusion, 162 patients were randomised with 80 for supportive care and 82 for immunosuppression.  Demographics of the two arms were not significantly different and enrolment was for three years.  In the immunosupression arm, those with an eGFR of ≥60 received 1g IV methylprednisolone on the first three days of months 1,3 and 5 and otherwise 0.5mg/kg prednisolone on all other days for the duration of the study.  Those with an eGFR of ≤30 received cyclophosphamide 1.5mg/kg/day for three months, then azathioprine 1.5mg/kg/day for months 4 to 36 together with prednisolone daily at a dose of 40mg daily tapered to 7.5mg from month 7. 
Endpoints were:
1)      Remission of IgA nephropathy defined as urine protein: creatinine ration <0.2g/24hours and stable renal function defined as a fall in eGFR of <5ml per minute per 1.73m² from baseline.
2)      Fall in eGFR >15ml per minute per 1.73m² from baseline.
Take home messages:  Importantly, 34% of patients had <0.75g proteinuria per day at six months, with supportive care alone, further underlining the importance of this treatment strategy.
At three years, 5% of patients in the supportive care as compared with 17% in the immunosuppression arm had achieved a complete remission (p=0.001).  However between the same groups there was no significant difference in the number with a stable eGFR.
At the end of three years there was also no significant difference in those having a decrease in eGFR ≥15ml per minute per 1.73m², 22 of 80 in supportive care versus 21 of 82 in the immunosuppression group. .
While there was no difference in overall adverse events between the groups, predictably there was a significantly increased rate of impaired glucose tolerance in the immunosuppression arm, together with higher trends for infection, malignant neoplasm and indeed there was one sepsis related death in the immunosuppression group.
Discussion:  The authors should be commended for the good design, adherence to and implementation of KDIGO guidance.  I think what this trial demonstrates best is that aggressive conservative therapy may lead to good outcomes in proteinuric IgA Nephropathy. The benefit of immunosuppression has not been demonstrated, particularly when the toxicity of the regimes are considered. Our practice will therefore be unlikely to change based on these results.  

Post by Andrew McClarey, 
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The Revolution of Medical Learning - Exploring Novel Teaching Tools…

Textbooks and formal lectures were previously considered the main sources to build a solid medical knowledge. However, the advancements of technology have transformed our learning process. Nowadays, students, residents and fellows learn from a combination of resources including Internet, Uptodate, webcasts, podcasts, blogs and apps in addition to formal teaching. 

One of the limitations of this is that learning became fragmented… I have personally experienced this fact as an Attending since fellows would learn very well certain topics in transplantation such as treatment of antibody-mediated rejection though would lack basic concepts about histocompatibility at the end of their fellowship. They were interested in learning more about anti-HLA testing though did not have the time to visit the lab or to read about it, in particular since most books go into to excessive details for their learning needs. 

Ultrasound is another area where fellows really ought to learn more during their fellowship, since I am confident that performing a bedside ultrasound can significantly improve patient care by identifying earlier abnormalities such as an obstruction or a lack of blood flow in kidney grafts. Ultrasound books made by radiologists are also over detailed for the fellow and are rarely used in practice. 



Finally, learning to assess kidney transplant biopsies and nuances of the diagnoses of various conditions is critical for the appropriate management of patients. Most centers lack a formal teaching of how to consistently approach a kidney biopsy. Helmut Rennke and Vanesa Bijol, two fabulous renal pathologist at the BWH, were critical for my learning on this topic but there is no fellow-oriented resource to quickly overview this subject other than renal pathology books. 

 To overcome the above limitations, I have been working for the past 6 years in an interactive transplant learning tool that contains more than 300 original figures/illustrations, questions, key-points and videos to consolidate all aspects of transplantation in one place. Helmut and Vanesa have provided me with slides from all kidney transplant patients that I have attended on, allowing me to share individual cases with beautiful biopsy findings. 

It was a lot of work since I decided to do all by myself, including illustrations, collection of radiology images, videos, graphs, questions,… The goal was really to have a book with a consistent approach to topics and similar style through out. This would be impossible if I had invited multiple contributors… Videos were elaborated to explain difficult topics such as anti-HLA assays, and problem-based cases describe the thought processes, differential diagnosis and management of common conditions affecting kidney transplant recipients. Lastly, questions and review key-points on every chapter will test the reader’s knowledge and hyperklinks will allow direct access with one-click to key references on Pubmed. The end-product was just made available online two weeks ago. 

I hope students, residents and fellows would enjoy the format and really get the most learning possible while seeing transplant patients. Our beta testing last year with BWH fellows was excellent! 

Hopefully you will also enjoy it...

 Have fun! 

Leo Riella

PS1. Read more about it the iBook here
PS2. To download the iBook,  an iPad, iPhone 6 or Mac computer is required. 

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Biosimilars: does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

A biopharmaceutical, or biologic, is any medicinal product manufactured in or extracted from a living system, such as a microorganism or plant or animal cells. Several biologic agents are produced using recombinant DNA technology, while others may be manipulated or humanized after their production. Most of these agents are very large and complex molecules compared to traditional small-molecule drugs. Given this fact, the manufacturing process of biologics is more challenging than traditional drugs, as even minor changes in the manufacturing process can impact efficacy or immunogenicity. 
 Use of biologic agents is now commonplace in many disease states, including oncology, rheumatology, renal transplant and nephrology. One of the major limitations of use of these agents is their associated costs. A small molecule drug costs, on average, $1/day, with generic drugs often costing just cents. In comparison, a biological drug costs, on average, $22/day. It is estimated that global biological sales are projected to reach $221 billion by 2017. One way to limit the healthcare expenditure on biologic agents is to allow for competition within the marketplace. However, given the complex manufacturing processes involved in making biologics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has traditionally not allowed generic competition for these products, even after their patents have expired. This all changed on March 23, 2010 when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law. This created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “biosimilar” to or “interchangeable” with approved, reference biological agents. 
 A biosimilar is simply defined as a biopharmaceutical protein designed to have active properties similar to an innovator biologic and approved through an abbreviated regulatory process. Due to the complexity of the manufacturing process, biosimilars should not be considered generic versions of biologics. The FDA requires animal studies to assess toxicities, as well as human pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical studies prior to approval of a biosimilar product. The objective of the PK study is to demonstrate comparability of relevant parameters in a sufficiently sensitive and homogeneous population. This analysis is often done in concert with the clinical study. For the clinical study, the primary objective is to establish biosimilarity, not clinical benefit, as its efficacy is already known from the registration studies of the innovator product. Biosimilarity is often established through a randomized, parallel group, comparative clinical trial. 
 The FDA has published “The Purple Book” that contains a list of licensed biologic products to help clinicians see whether a particular product has been determined by the FDA to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, a reference biologic product. Despite the approval pathway for biosimilars being signed into law over five years ago, it was not until March 2015 that the FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio® (filgrastim-sndz). Biosimilars are a relatively new in the US; however, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has had a regulatory process for approval of biosimilars for nearly 10 years. Their approvals for biosimilars cover five classes: recombinant erythropoietins (i.e., epoetin alfa, epoetin zeta); recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (i.e., filgrastim); recombinant human growth hormone (i.e., somatropin); recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (i.e., follitropin alfa) and monoclonal antibodies (i.e., infliximab). To date, the EMA has approved 19 biosimilars. 
 Biosimilars in Nephrology 
After 6 years of successful use in Europe, data has demonstrated that biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are safe and effective alternatives to brand-name epoetin alfa for treating anemia in patients with kidney disease. In United States, the patent for Procrit® (epotein alfa) expired in August 2013; however, the patent for Epogen® (epoetin alfa) remains active until May 2015. On the other hand, the patency for Aranesp® (darbapoetin alfa) will expire in 2024. Since the U.S. key patents on epoetin alfa have begun to expire, Hospira has submitted Biologics License Application to U.S FDA to get Retacrit® (epoetin zeta) approved as a proposed biosimilar for epoetin alfa.
  Biosimilars in Transplantation 
Monoclonal antibodies are very complex biologics that have shown to be effective for different indications. In renal transplantation, a series of monoclonal antibodies have been used as induction therapy or to treat steroid-resistant acute rejections, such as Simulect® (basiliximab) or Campath® (alemtuzumab). It appears that alemtuzumab will lose patent protection at the end of 2015, while basiliximab patent protection will expire in 2018. These could be among the first transplant-related immunosuppressive biosimilars approved in the US within the next five years.

-      Razan M. Alsheikh, PharmD, BCPS, PGY-2 Organ Transplant Pharmacology Resident, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA

-      Steven Gabardi, PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, Department of Transplant Surgery and Renal Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA

Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Lone Star Tick


Recently a 65-year-old female was referred to an ED in the state of Missouri complaining of fevers, chills, headache, diarrhea and vomiting occurring over the last week. 3 weeks prior she had received an orthotopic liver transplant. Her post transplant course was unremarkable and she was discharged on prograf 2mf bid, myfortic 360mg bid, prednisone tapering, Bactrim single strength daily and valcyte 450mg od. She also took thyroid replacement, Januvia, warfarin and aspirin. Past medical history included diabetes, heart failure, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, hypothyroid and PUD. She also had CKD with a creatinine about 1.4mg/dl. On examination her Temp was 38.6, HR 110, BP 113/76 and O2sats 99% on RA. She had no nuchal rigidity but reported a sore neck. She had an erythematous area on her lower back. The rest of her exam was normal.

Her initial labs were:
Hb 6.3, WCC 2.7 (94%neuts, 5.8%lymphs), platelets 35
NA 122, K 5.6, Cl 100, CO2 11, BUN36, Creat 2.3, Gluc 173
Arterial pH 7.31, CO2 20, O2 102
AST 52, ALT 41, AP 155, GGT 171, Bili 0.6, Alb 3.3
UA, No blood, 1+protein, 2 rbc, 2 wbc

She had a normal CT brain and was started on multiple antibiotics in the ED.

On further questioning her daughter reported removing a tick from her back after the patient went out looking at deer close to her house.
Lets pretend the daughter brought in a picture of the tick (see above)!

Lab trends; admission to discharge.
Hb 6.3
WCC 2.7                   1.4           0.6           0.5           0.3           1.2           2.4
94%neut                90            91            87            83            60            59
5.8%lym                 6               6.7           9.2           14            16            28
plt 35                       16            18            24            28            26            31
NA 122                    128         132         135
K 5.6                   
Cl 100
Co2 11
BUN36
Creat 2.3                 2.2           1.8           1.6                                               1.3
Gluc 173
pH 7.31
CO2 20
O2 102
AST 52                                                                                                               31
ALT 41                                                                                                               31
AP 155                                                                                                              249
GGT 171                                                                                                                            
Bili 0.6                                                                                                               0.8
Alb 3.3
UA
No blood
2 rbc
2 wbc
1+protein
No lumbar puncture was performed.

To summarize, this lady had constitutional symptoms, fever, neurological symptoms, GI symptoms with a rash and a tick bite. She had pancytopenia, transaminitis, hyponatreamia and renal failure.

Her antiproliferative medication and anti-infective medications were held (Myfortic, valcyte and Bactrim).
IV Doxycycline was commenced.
Sodium and creatinine improved and potassium became low, likely due to GI losses.
Interestingly her leucopenia followed the classical pattern of lymphopenia followed by leucopenia and she required G-CSF. Her transaminases were normal at the time of discharge.

Diagnosis = Ehrlichiosis 

The first case of human ehrlichiosis was described in 1986.
The two most important species to infect humans are Ehrlichia chaffeensis which causes human monocytic ehrlichiosis (HME) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum which causes human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA). Both of these diseases have the same vector and have very similar clinical and laboratory features. Ehrlichia ewingii is a less common cause of ehrlichiosis than Ehrlichia chaffeensis.
Ehrlichiae are obligate intracellular bacteria found in membrane bound vacuoles in human and animal leukocytes.

The most endemic area is the southeastern USA – ‘the tick belt’. See the CDC map for the endemic regions in the USA. Cases have also been reported in Europe, Africa, South America and Mexico.

The lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) is recognized by the CDC as the principal vector of Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii in the U.S.; both disease agents are responsible for causing ehrlichiosis in humans. White-tailed deer are a primary host of the lone star tick and appear to serve as a natural reservoir for E. chaffeensis. The lone star tick is also a vector of Francisella tularensis, causal agent of tularemia. Adult ticks parasistize deer, cattle, horses, feral swine, sheep, dogs, and humans.

Most infections occur in the spring and summer in the USA.

The clinical manifestations in the elderly and immunosuppressed can be very severe but the following are the usual clinical features:

Fever - Some fevers can be protracted over weeks
Malaise, myalgia, headache and chills – 2/3
Nausea, vomiting and arthralgia – ¼ to ½
Rash (Macular, mucopapular, petechial) – 1/3
Meningism – ¼

More rarely – Seizures, coma, renal failure, heart failure and respiratory failure
There has been a single case of myocarditis and multi-organ failure in a healthy adolescent.

Laboratory findings:
  
Most common triad is leucopenia, thrombocytopenia and elevated transaminases.

CBC
Leucopenia. This tends to be caused by lymphopenia initially followed by neutropenia as in this patient.
Thrombocytopenia
Anaemia

CHEMISTRY.
Elevated transaminases, LDH and Alk phos
Hyponatreamia
Elevated creatinine

CSF, when neurological symptoms
Lymphocytic pleocytosis and elevated CSF protein

Diagnosis
Usually by PCR methods. Note this test may not detect the recently reported third species, E. muris, found in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Differential diagnosis
This can be a difficult diagnosis to make. It is clinically and geographically similar to RMSF. It can also present like mononucleosis, TTP, hematologic malignancy, cholangitis, the early phases of hepatitis A infection. This is especially so in immunocompromised patients whose clinical features may not be as obvious initially. Common transplant drugs such as Bactrim/Septra, valganciclovir, mycophenolate and azathioprine can also cause cytopenias.

Treatment (adults)
Doxycycline 100mg iv or po bid for about 10 days.
Note this will also treat RMSF which is often confused with ehrlichiosis.

Outcomes. Mortality is about 5%. Most commonly due to viral or fungal super-infections (Invasive aspergillosis, candida, HSV).

This interesting case illustrates the difficulty in diagnosing tick borne infections. They can be lethal and severe in our immunosuppressed transplant population and can be a cause of renal failure in any patient. Also of interest in this case is the lymphocytopenic and neutropenic trending that is usually more peculiar to Anaplasma phagocytophilum which causes human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA). We did not test for A phagocytophilum as ehrlichae PCR was positive.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Parvovirus B19 and the Kidney

Parvovirus B19 (PVB19) is a small, non-enveloped, single-stranded DNA virus belonging to the Erythrovirus genus, named for their tropism for erythroid precursor cells. It is the only known parvovirus to infect humans. By late adulthood, most people have IgG Anti-PVB19 serology demonstrating previous exposure, often from an asymptomatic infection. However, infection with PVB19 may cause a variety of clinical syndromes including fifth disease (‘Erythema infectiosum‘, a childhood viral exanthem), a polyarthropathy, pure red cell aplasia and hydrops fetalis in utero. The nephrologist may encounter PVB19 in 3 broad settings: 

Post-Transplant 

The incidence of PVB19 infection post kidney transplantation is hard to accurately determine but is likely in the range of 1-10%. Infection tends to occur in the first year and frequently in the first few weeks, suggesting possible donor transmission but the mechanism of infection/trans mission is unknown. Clinical syndromes are mainly acute anemia and chronic pure red cell aplasia, although a pancytopenia may develop. The few cases I have seen have been easy to identify, as patient presented with a profound isolated anemia. The diagnosis of chronic anemia or pancytopenia may be more protracted as these are obviously common post-transplant complications (graft dysfunction; drugs-immunosuppressants, anti-virals, co-trimoxazole, ACE inhibitor; other infections-CMV etc.). Treatment consists of reducing immunosuppression (usually the anti-metabolite) and IVIg. Similar to other viral infections (CMV, Polyoma viruses), there is some thought that PVB19 may be associated with allograft dysfunction or even acute rejection (?injured endothelium exposing previously hidden epitopes; no hard evidence for this however). A case series of thrombotic microangiopathy with PVB19 infection post transplant isolated PVB19 DNA from graft biopsies, however, overall the evidence for PVB19-induced allograft dysfunction is weak at present. 

Glomerular Disease 

PVB19 may cause a variety of glomerular lesions in immunocompetent hosts. These were first noted as associations with PVB19 viremia, however, subsequently viral DNA has been identified in renal cells from biopsy tissue. The most well described pattern of injury is FSGS, particular a collapsing glomerulopathy (see image), where the PVB19 genome has been detected in podocytes and parietal epithelial cells by PCR. Proliferative glomerulonephritis has also been temporally associated with PVB19 infection. A syndrome similar to acute post-infectious glomerulonephritis may occur, displaying hypocomplementemia, endocapillary and mesangial proliferation with subendothelial electron dense deposits. Acute glomerulonephritis may be more common in patients with sickle cell disease after an aplastic crisis due to PVB19. Given the ubiquitous nature of PVB19, it is likely that host factors contribute to why certain individuals manifest glomerular disease, with genetic factors, as always, being implicated. Viral DNA may be found in renal tissue after the acute infection has passed and the glomerular lesions will not necessarily improve with resolution of the infection. 

Dialysis Patients 

Patient with ESRD are considered to be at risk for aplastic crisis due to PVB19, albeit with a paucity of data to support that claim. The presence of abundant immature erythroid cells (due to EPO use), a relative immunosuppressed state and some particular patient populations (e.g. sickle cell disease) lead to an increased theoretical risk of this complication. 

PVB19 may be diagnosed using serology although immunosuppressed patients may not mount an adequate antibody response so PCR viral load is commonly employed. Treatment is non-specific and is generally supportive. IVIg is often used as these pooled preparations have anti-PVB19 antibodies, although randomized controlled data supporting its use is not available. Cutting back immunosuppression in transplant patients may also be of benefit, initially by reducing/stopping the anti-metabolite (logical as mycophenolate frequently induces bone marrow suppression independently). Also, tacrolimus is considered by some to be particularly conducive to PVB19 infection and a switch to cyclosporine may be a next step. 
To summarize, PVB19 is important to the nephrologist from a clinical perspective particularly for its tendency to cause isolated severe anemia (or pancytopenia) in our immunosuppressed patients. It may also cause glomerular disease in immunocompetent patients and should be a differential diagnosis for otherwise unexplained glomerulopathy, especially collapsing FSGS. It also provides clues from a research perspective to mechanism of glomerular disease/sclerosis.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

IMAGINE trial for Transplant Immunosuppression: Dream RCT in Nephrology

I thought I would throw in my two cents on the Dream RCT in Nephrology poll being co-ordinated at UKidney. My choice focuses on transplant immunosuppression and you can see the entry by Joel Topf on PB Fluids here.

There is no standardization of immunosuppression post kidney transplant and before I’m attacked on the blogosphere, I do think that’s a good thing. Each transplant operation is unique with differing immunological risks based on donor & recipient factors. A non-sensitized, white, living donor transplant recipient should be managed different to a deceased-donor, African American, re-transplant. However, there are almost as many different protocols as there are transplant centers and new immunosuppressive agents are becoming available for clinical use. Therefore the transplant community is far from certain which exact agents should be employed for different risk groups. My pick for dream RCT in Nephrology is admittedly a tricky one. If I could have 2 or 3 dream RCTs that would certainly make things easier for me.

Before I start I would like to justify why I feel we need this. The ELITE-Symphony study was a landmark RCT in kidney transplant immunosuppression. Briefly, a regimen of low dose tacrolimus together with MMF, steroids and induction with daclizumab was more beneficial regarding eGFR, allograft survival and acute rejection (AR) at 1 year. Comparison regimens were low dose cyclosporine, low dose sirolimus (both instead of tacrolimus above) plus an additional arm without induction but with standard dose cyclosporine, MMF & steroids. Note that the patients were overall low risk: predominantly white, 35% living donors, mean PRA 20%. This trial solidified the current standard of care for most patients as low dose, triple immunosuppression based around tacrolimus. However since then we have a new kid on the block in belatacept, follow up in SYMPHONY was only 1 year and the issue of induction therapy is not resolved.

Belatacept is a T-cell co-stimulatory blocker and has demonstrated efficacy as a maintenance agent for both standard and expanded criteria donor kidneys. The belatacept studies (BENEFIT & BENEFIT-EXT) used cyclosporine as the comparator and both demonstrated an improvement in eGFR at 3 years despite more early AR.

Let us consider these 2 points which will simplify my imaginary trials:
1. Firstly, no mTOR inhibitors. They’re out! Why do we keep trying to find a mainstream role for mTOR inhibitors in renal transplantation?. I will admit that they have a (limited) role in renal transplantation, mostly when malignancy is an issue or in certain cases of calcineurin inhibitor toxicity (when no proteinuria and preserved GFR). In the ELITE-Symphony study, they had the worst allograft survival & the most adverse events with almost half of patients withdrawing from the sirolimus group. They will never be the cornerstone of immunosuppression post-transplant, especially early post transplant, so they will not be considered.

2. Why is cyclosporine always the control group for new immunosuppressive drugs post transplant? The FDA has traditional mandated that the control arm be a cyclosporine based regimen, despite this not being the standard of care anymore. Tacrolimus is now the leading agent used for >85% of patients as per the SRTR Report 2011 (versus about 4% for cyclosporine). Therefore, cyclosporine is also out. Transplant centers will be more willing to participate as their patients in the control arm will be getting current standard of care.

Immunuosuppression MAnagement for Graft survival IN the current Era (IMAGINE) will be a multi-center randomized controlled trial comparing 2 immunosuppression regimes in general real-world kidney transplant recipients (living & deceased donors, calculated PRA <50%, re-transplants with cPRA <30%). The trial will have a 2x2 factorial design based on 2 induction and 2 subsequent maintenance arms.
1. Induction arm: Basiliximab (daclizumab no longer available) versus rATG. There is an argument for including Alemtuzumab here but this trial is already getting messy so we’ll leave that for IMAGINE-2.
2. Maintenance arm: tacrolimus V belatacept, both with MMF (1g BID)/steroids. It is an open-label design given that belatacept is administered IV and therapeutic drug monitoring is needed with tacrolimus. Maintenance trough levels will be 4-7ng/ml. Note that actual achieved levels in SYMPHONY were close to 7ng/ml despite target being 3-7ng/ml.

Induction: I have included an induction arm as I feel this is another area which needs clarity. For highly sensitized patients there is more consensus that lymphocyte-depleting agents are the way to go (with rATG being more favourable to ATGAM & OKT3). For general low-to-moderate risk recipients, the optimal induction agent is less clear. There is evidence that again rATG is more efficacious but with infection risk and logistical reasons perhaps being important, basiliximab use is common (approximately 1/3 of transplants in 2011).
The sister trial Immunuosuppression MAnagement for Graft survival IN A RiskY population (IMAGINARY) will include highly sensitized recipients with cPRA>50% and re-transplants with prior graft loss due to AR or cPRA >30%. This study will use rATG as induction.
Outcomes: Primary outcome is allograft & patient survival (hard outcomes) at 5 years. Secondary outcome are eGFR and early AR (a relatively soft outcome in my opinion post transplant). Most trials report one year follow-ups which has less relevance for an organ you hope to last >10 years.

Therefore notable features of these trials include hard endpoints, longer follow-up, comparison to the current standard of care and induction arms. That’s my trial design which will form the template for further imaginary studies of newer immunosuppressive agents currently in development. I apologize for the protracted post but these issues couldn’t be dealt with any more briefly! I realize that my dream RCTs may leave me open to criticism but the point of this exercise is to provoke discussion and challenge us to think about what we do and why we do it. And yes, I came up with the trial acronyms before I even wrote the post!