黑料网

Organ transplantation; Immunosuppression; Rejection; Calcineurin inhibitors; mTOR inhibitors; Antimetabolites; Corticosteroids; Antibodies; Tolerance; Side effects

Introduction

Organ transplantation offers a definitive treatment for end-stage organ failure, significantly improving patient survival and quality of life. However, the inherent challenge lies in the recipient's immune system recognizing the transplanted organ (graft) as foreign and initiating an immune response leading to rejection [1]. This complex process involves both cellular and humoral immunity. T lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ helper T cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, play a central role in cell-mediated rejection, recognizing alloantigens on the graft cells presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules [2]. These T cells become activated, proliferate, and infiltrate the graft, causing direct damage to the transplanted tissue. Humoral rejection, mediated by antibodies produced by B lymphocytes, can also contribute to graft injury, particularly in the context of pre-existing antibodies against donor antigens or the development of de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) post-transplant [3].

To prevent rejection, recipients require lifelong immunosuppressive therapy. The goal of immunosuppression is to selectively suppress the immune response against the graft while minimizing the risk of infections and other side effects. The development of effective immunosuppressive agents has been a major breakthrough in transplantation, enabling long-term graft survival [4]. The initial era of immunosuppression relied heavily on non-specific agents such as azathioprine and corticosteroids. However, the introduction of cyclosporine in the late 1970s marked a paradigm shift, significantly improving outcomes and paving the way for the widespread application of transplantation [5].

Current immunosuppressive strategies typically involve a multi-drug approach, often combining agents with different mechanisms of action to achieve synergistic immunosuppression while minimizing individual drug toxicities. This approach, known as combination immunosuppression, usually includes a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), an antimetabolite (mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid), and corticosteroids [6]. In some cases, other agents such as mTOR inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus) or antibodies (e.g., anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), basiliximab) may be added to the regimen.

Description

The results of immunosuppressive therapy are primarily assessed by graft survival rates and the incidence of rejection episodes. Over the past decades, significant improvements in short-term and long-term graft survival have been achieved due to advances in immunosuppression [7]. However, despite these advancements, acute and chronic rejection remain significant challenges. Acute rejection, typically occurring within the first few months post-transplant, can often be reversed with increased immunosuppression. Chronic rejection, a more insidious process characterized by progressive graft dysfunction, is a major cause of late graft loss and remains a significant unmet need [8].

Each class of immunosuppressive agents has its own specific mechanism of action and associated side effects. CNIs, such as tacrolimus and cyclosporine, inhibit calcineurin, a phosphatase crucial for T cell activation and interleukin-2 (IL-2) production [9]. Common side effects of CNIs include nephrotoxicity, hypertension, neurotoxicity, and metabolic disturbances. Antimetabolites, such as mycophenolate mofetil, inhibit purine synthesis, thereby suppressing lymphocyte proliferation. Their main side effects include gastrointestinal disturbances, bone marrow suppression, and infections. Corticosteroids exert broad anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects but are associated with numerous long-term complications, including diabetes, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease. mTOR inhibitors inhibit a key signaling pathway involved in cell growth and proliferation, affecting both T cells and other cell types. Common side effects include hyperlipidemia, impaired wound healing, and thrombocytopenia. Antibodies, such as ATG, deplete T cells, providing potent immunosuppression but increasing the risk of infections.

Discussion

Optimizing immunosuppressive therapy requires careful consideration of several factors, including the type of organ transplanted, the recipient's immunological risk profile, and the presence of comorbidities. Individualizing immunosuppressive regimens based on these factors is crucial to maximize graft survival while minimizing side effects. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is essential for CNIs and mTOR inhibitors to ensure adequate drug exposure and avoid toxicity [10].

The long-term use of immunosuppressive agents is associated with a range of complications, including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. These complications contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients. Therefore, strategies aimed at minimizing long-term immunosuppression and promoting tolerance are actively being investigated. Tolerance, a state of specific unresponsiveness of the immune system to the graft, would allow for withdrawal of immunosuppression without rejection. Several approaches are being explored to induce tolerance, including costimulatory blockade, regulatory T cell therapy, and mixed chimerism.

Emerging strategies in immunosuppression also include the development of novel agents with more selective mechanisms of action and fewer side effects. These include selective inhibitors of specific immune pathways and targeted therapies that modulate immune cell trafficking or function. Furthermore, advancements in personalized medicine and biomarker discovery hold promise for tailoring immunosuppressive regimens based on individual patient characteristics and predicting rejection risk.

Conclusion

Immunosuppressive therapy is essential for the success of organ transplantation. Significant progress has been made in developing effective immunosuppressive agents and strategies, leading to improved graft survival rates. However, long-term immunosuppression is associated with significant complications, highlighting the need for strategies to minimize immunosuppression and promote tolerance. Ongoing research focused on developing novel immunosuppressive agents, exploring tolerance induction strategies, and implementing personalized medicine approaches holds great promise for further improving outcomes and quality of life for transplant recipients. Future directions should prioritize the development of more targeted and less toxic immunosuppressive regimens, ultimately leading to tolerance and the elimination of the need for chronic immunosuppression.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Delgado JF, Reyne AG, de Dios S, López-Medrano F, Jurado A, et al. (2015) Influence of cytomegalovirus infection in the development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 3:1112-1119.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Raffa GM, Di Gesaro G, Sciacca S, Tuzzolino F, Turrisi M, et al. (2016) Heart transplant program at IRCCS-ISMETT: Impact of mechanical circulatory support on pre- and post -transplant survival. Int J Cardiol 219: 358-361.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Zielińska K, Kukulski L, Wróbel M, Przybyłowski P, Rokicka D, et al. (2022) Carbohydrate Metabolism Disorders in Relation to Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy (CAV) Intensification in Heart Transplant Patients According to the Grading Scheme Developed by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Ann Transplant 27: 933420.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Conway J, Manlhiot C, Kirk R, Edwards LB, McCrindle BW, et al. Mortality and morbidity after retransplantation after primary heart transplant in childhood: an analysis from the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 33: 241-251.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. R D Vanderlaan, C Manlhiot, L B Edwards, J Conway, B W McCrindle, et al. (2015) Risk factors for specific causes of death following pediatric heart transplant: An analysis of the registry of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 19: 896-905.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Kitamura S (2012) Heart transplantation in Japan: a critical appraisal for the results and future prospects. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 60: 639-644.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Wever-Pinzon O, Edwards LB, Taylor DO, Kfoury AG, Drakos SG, et al. (2017) Association of recipient age and causes of heart transplant mortality: Implications for personalization of post-transplant management-An analysis of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry. J Heart Lung Transplant 36: 407-417.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Saczkowski R, Dacey C, Bernier PL (2010) Does ABO-incompatible and ABO-compatible neonatal heart transplant have equivalent survival. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 10: 1026-1033.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Jeewa A, Manlhiot C, Kantor PF, Mital S, McCrindle BW, et al. (2014) Risk factors for mortality or delisting of patients from the pediatric heart transplant waiting list. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147: 462-468.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Sivathasan C, Lim CP, Kerk KL, Sim DK, Mehra MR, et al. (2017) Mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation in the Asia Pacific region. J Heart Lung Transplant 36: 13-18.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref