Abstract
Historically, hepatitis B virus (HBV) liver transplantation (LT) recipients have less acute cellular rejection (ACR) than those without HBV. We questioned whether this has persisted in an era of decreased Hepatitis B immunoglobulin use (HBIG) given its in vitro immunoregulatory effects.
We compared the incidence, risk factors and outcomes of ACR among 40,593 primary LT recipients with HBV, hepatitis C, steatohepatitis, and immune liver disease (OPTN 2000–2011). We also assessed the in vitro effect of HBIG on alloimmune lymphoproliferation and regulatory T cell generation using mixed lymphocyte reactions.
In multivariate analysis, HBV status remained a strong independent predictor of freedom from ACR (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 1.5–2.1). Patient (67.7% vs 72.3%) and graft (60.8% vs 69.1%) survival were significantly lower in patients with ACR versus no ACR for all causes except HBV. HBIG use had no statistical association with ACR. In vitro, HBIG at concentrations equivalent to clinical dosing did not inhibit lymphoproliferation or promote regulatory T cell development.
In summary, the incidence and impact of ACR is lower now for HBV LT and does not appear to be secondary to HBIG by our in vitro and in vivo analyses. Rather, it may be due to the innate immunosuppressive properties of chronic HBV infection.
Keywords: Hepatitis B virus, Rejection, Liver transplantation, Hepatitis B immunoglobulin, Immunosuppression
1. Introduction
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infects approximately 400 million persons worldwide causing over 1 million deaths per year [1]. Globally, 30% of cirrhosis and 53% of hepatocellular carcinoma cases are attributed to HBV, with liver transplantation (LT) as the main treatment option. From the mid-1990s until mid-2000s, the gold standard for prevention of HBV reinfection following LT has been hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) treatment with or without nucleos(t)ide antiviral analogues [2]. Over the past decade, more effective antiviral agents with low incidences of resistance (e.g. tenofovir, entecavir) have become available, allowing post-LT transition from long-term high-dose HBIG to short courses, lower doses or even no HBIG therapy [3]. Thus, the role of HBIG following LT to prevent HBV recurrence has become a major question, because of increased effectiveness of antiviral therapy [4–6]. Although given in much lower doses, HBIG may have immunological properties similar to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), which among other mechanisms has inhibitory effects on dendritic cell presentation & T cell proliferation [7–9]. Prior to the year 2000, HBV+ LT recipients were reported to have lower acute cellular rejection (ACR) rates than those without HBV [10] perhaps attributable to the administration of HBIG. In the more recent era (2000-present), we hypothesized that rejection rates might have increased in HBV+ recipients given the paradigm shift away from HBIG therapy [7]. We also were interested in whether HBIG truly has in vitro immunoregulatory effects, which would support maintenance of HBIG for non-viral immunological reasons, rather than the trend to discontinue. Thus, our aim was to examine the relationship between HBV, HBIG use and rejection in the current era of LT.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Clinical study design
A retrospective case-control study of primary LT was conducted for the following diagnoses: HBV, Hepatitis C virus (HCV), steatohepatitis (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH] and/or alcoholic cirrhosis) and immune-mediated liver disease (primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), and/or autoimmune hepatitis). National data was obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Database. Local data was obtained using our center’s electronic medical record to abstract more granular information on ACR (e.g. biopsy-proven ACR, treatment course) and HBIG use. All end stage liver disease (ESLD) patients ≥18 years of age who were listed for first liver or liver/kidney transplant from 1/1/2000 through 12/31/2011 were included to allow for at least 1 year of follow up data. Patients with a prior LT, status 1 listing, and with combined heart, lung, or pancreas transplants were excluded. The outcomes were to 1) determine the more recent prevalence of ACR and related patient/graft survival in HBV+LT recipients compared with the other groups listed above; 2) assess whether rejection rates in HBV were associated with use or non-use of HBIG; 3) identify other risk factors associated with ACR in relation to HBV.
Data from the OPTN database included the following: patient and donor age, gender, race, and BMI, donor/recipient gender matching, ABO blood type and CMV status, patient and donor health history, cold-ischemia time, calculated model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, laboratory values, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and immunosuppression regimens. HBIG use was defined as any recorded documentation of HBIG therapy following LT. Information on HBIG use was only available in 155 (7.6%) HBV+ LT recipients as this is not a required OPTN input field. However, there was no statistically significant difference in omitted data when HBV+ recipients were stratified by rejection status, age or sex. To improve the sensitivity of our national analysis, we also examined HBIG use in relation to biopsy-proven ACR at our own center. At our center ACR is treated by a standard protocol that includes Solu-Medrol 500 mg intravenously for 3 days, followed by a standardized oral prednisone taper and an increase in calcineurin inhibitor trough levels and/or the addition of mycophenolate mofetil based on time from liver transplantation. In OPTN, ACR was reported by each institution and may not have been biopsy-proven. Graft survival was defined as time from LT to graft failure, censoring for death with a functioning graft. Patient survival was defined as time from LT to patient death. Our institutional review board approved the data analysis.
2.2. In vitro study design
In this approach, we studied the effects of HBIG on the generation of regulatory T cells (Tregs) using our validated assays (Treg-MLR) with laboratory volunteer peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) [11–13]. We tested whether HBIG (supplied by Cangene©, Winnipeg, Canada) at indicated concentrations would inhibit MLRs but simultaneously generate CD4+CD127−CD25+FOXP3+ total Tregs and CD4+CD127−CD25HighFOXP3+ natural Tregs (nTregs) in contrast to cultures without HBIG. The research was conducted on HLA-typed human subjects after obtaining written consent.
2.2.1. Culture conditions
Responder PBMC (A) were labeled with CFSE following the manufacturer’s instructions (labeling efficiency of >99%). They were stimulated with x-irradiated (3,000 RADS) PBMC labeled with PKH26 from 2 HLA-DR matched (Bx) vs. mismatched (Ix) volunteer donors, in 15% normal human AB serum containing complete media. The cultures were incubated at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere for 5, 7 ± 9 days before processing [11–13].
2.2.2. Assessment of proliferation
This was measured using both CFSE labeling in flow cytometry (as below) for cell counts and by standard 3H-TdR incorporation assays [11]. Radioactive incorporation was measured using a Packard-Beta counter (Meriden, CT). The Stimulation Index (SI) was calculated using the formula:
For measuring inhibitory effects, the percentage of medium control was calculated using the formula:
2.2.3. Assessment of Treg generation by flow cytometry
The extent of proliferation and the expression of CD25 and FOXP3 were analyzed in CD4+ cells of the non-proliferating (CFSE high) and proliferating (CFSE low) populations that were negative for both CD127-PE and PKH26 (thus gating out CD127+ responders and any residual stimulators). Data were calculated as percentage of CD4+ cells that were CD127−CD25+FOXP3+ (total Tregs) or CD127−CD25HighFOXP3+ (nTregs).
2.3. Statistical analyses
Patient characteristics were compared between four indications for LT: HBV, HCV, steatohepatitis, and immune-mediated. Frequency counts and percentages are shown for categorical variables and were compared using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Means and standard deviations are shown for continuous variables and analyzed using t-tests and analysis of variance with Tukey tests for post hoc comparisons. Medians and interquartile ranges are shown for continuous variables that deviated from normality and were compared using Wilcoxon tests. Unadjusted logistic regression models were utilized to find univariate predictors of acute cellular rejection in all patients as well as in the subset of patients with HBV. A multivariate logistic regression model to predict ACR was constructed using variables deemed important a priori: age, race, HBV status, and immunoprophylaxis use. Patient and graft survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and differences between groups were analyzed using log-rank tests. For the Treg-MLR, Student T-tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for parametric and non-parametric calculations respectively were used. The SAS statistical software version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) was used for all data analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Recipient characteristics
Over the 10-year study period, 40,593 liver transplantations for HBV, HCV, steatohepatitis, and immune-mediated liver disease were identified in the OPTN [Table 1]. Of these, 2035 (5%) were HBV+. HBV+ recipients were 53.1 ± 9.5 years of age and were more likely to be male, Asian, and have HCC compared to those without HBV (p < .0001). The mean calculated MELD score in HBV+ recipients (18.7 ± 12.2) was significantly lower than recipients with steatohepatitis (21.4 ± 9.5, p < .0001), but similar to other causes. Of 1,077 LT performed at our center during the same study period, 64 (5.9%) were due to HBV. They were 52.8 ± 7.2 years of age, 83.6% male and 27.9% Asian.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics by indication for liver transplant in OPTN.
| Indication | HBV N (%) | HCV N (%) | Steatohepatitis N (%) | Immune-mediated N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients | 2035 (5.0) | 21242 (52.3) | 10644 (26.2) | 6672 (16.4) |
| Age (Years) | 53.1 ± 9.5 | 53.2 ± 7.2 | 55.0 ± 8.6 | 50.3 ± 12.8 |
| Female Gender | 372 (18.3) | 5482 (25.8) | 2832 (26.6) | 3874 (58.1) |
| Race & ethnicity | ||||
| White | 907 (44.6) | 15167 (71.4) | 8659 (81.4) | 5095 (76.4) |
| Black | 202 (9.9) | 2135 (10.1) | 341 (3.2) | 768 (11.5) |
| Hispanic | 138 (6.8) | 3174 (14.9) | 1412 (13.3) | 620 (9.3) |
| Asian | 746 (36.7) | 554 (2.6) | 113 (1.1) | 112 (1.7) |
| Other | 42 (2.1) | 212 (1.0) | 119 (1.1) | 77 (1.2) |
| Calculated MELD score | 18.7 ± 12.2 | 18.9 ± 10.2 | 21.4 ± 9.5 | 18.6 ± 10.1 |
| Hepatocellular Carcinoma | 643 (31.6) | 5180 (24.4) | 1136 (10.7) | 327 (4.9) |
| Living Donor | 72 (3.5) | 866 (4.1) | 330 (3.1) | 743 (11.1) |
| Recipient BMI (kg/m2) | 26.7 ± 5.2 | 28.7 ± 5.3 | 29.3 ± 5.9 | 26.5 ± 5.4 |
| Cold Ischemia Time (Hr)–Median (Q1, Q3) | 7.0 (5.0, 9.0) | 6.9 (5.0, 8.8) | 6.9 (5.0, 8.7) | 6.5 (4.9, 8.7) |
| ABO Match Compatibility | ||||
| Identical | 1849 (90.9) | 19997 (94.1) | 9989 (93.9) | 6237 (93.5) |
| Compatible | 176 (8.7) | 1122 (5.3) | 591 (5.6) | 395 (5.9) |
| Incompatible | 10 (0.5) | 123 (0.6) | 64 (0.6) | 39 (0.6) |
| Immunoprophylaxis | ||||
| Calcineurin inhibitor | 1935 (95.1) | 20266 (95.4) | 10082 (94.7) | 6397 (95.9) |
| Steroids | 1702 (83.6) | 17093 (80.5) | 8629 (81.1) | 5787 (86.7) |
3.2. Acute cellular rejection
From the OPTN data, 8425 (21%) had at least one ACR episode. Univariate predictors of ACR included HBV, young age, female sex, black race, HCC status, female gender, donor age, graft cold ischemia time, and donor-recipient gender matching (Table 2). In multivariable analysis adjusted for age, gender, and immunosuppression, HBV status remained a strong negative predictor of ACR (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.51–0.67, p < 0.001, Fig. 1). Overall graft (60.8% vs. 69.1%) and patient (67.7% vs. 72.3%) survival were significantly lower in those with ACR compared to those without ACR, except in HBV+ recipients where there was a trend toward lower patient but not graft survival (Fig. 2A and B) (see Table 3).
Table 2.
Univariate comparison of liver transplant recipients with and without acute cellular rejection in OPTN.
| Characteristic | Rejection N (%) | No rejection N (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients | 8425 (21.0) | 31644 (79.0) | |
| Age (Years) | 51.4 ± 9.7 | 53.7 ± 8.7 | 0.973 (0.970, 0.975) |
| Female Gender | 2929 (34.8) | 9454 (29.9) | 1.251 (1.189, 1.316) |
| Race & Ethnicity | |||
| White | 6049 (71.8) | 23395 (73.9) | Reference |
| Black | 943 (11.2) | 2465 (7.8) | 1.480 (1.366, 1.064) |
| Hispanic | 1093 (13.0) | 4180 (13.2) | 1.011 (0.941, 1.087) |
| Asian | 243 (2.9) | 1261 (4.0) | 0.746 (0.648, 0.858) |
| Other | 97 (1.2) | 343 (1.1) | 1.094 (0.871, 1.373) |
| Cause of Liver Disease | |||
| Hepatitis B | 279 (3.3) | 1719 (5.4) | 0.428 (0.373, 0.491) |
| Hepatitis C | 4366 (51.8) | 16597 (52.5) | 0.694 (0.651, 0.739) |
| Steatohepatitis | 1969 (23.4) | 4776 (15.1) | 0.607 (0.564, 0.653) |
| Immune-mediated | 1811 (21.5) | 8552 (27.0) | Reference |
| Calculated MELD score | 19.2 ± 9.9 | 19.6 ± 10.2 | 0.996 (0.994, 0.999) |
| Hepatocellular Carcinoma | 1286 (15.3) | 5966 (18.9) | 0.775 (0.726, 0.828) |
| Recipient BMI (kg/m2) | 28.2 ± 5.5 | 28.5 ± 5.6 | 0.990 (0.986, 0.995) |
| Donor Factors | |||
| Age (Years) | 40.3 ± 16.6 | 41.0 ± 16.9 | 0.998 (0.996, 0.999) |
| Female Gender | 3333 (39.6) | 12808 (40.5) | 0.963 (0.917, 1.011) |
| Donor Risk Index | 1.35 ± 0.36 | 1.35 ± 0.36 | 1.011 (0.944, 1.084) |
| Donor BMI (kg/m2) | 26.6 ± 5.8 | 26.7 ± 5.8 | 0.998 (0.994, 1.002) |
| Living Donor | 439 (5.2) | 1540 (4.9) | 1.075 (0.964, 1.198) |
| Donor-Recipient Compatibility | |||
| Sex (donor female, recipient male) | 1938 (23.0) | 8074 (25.5) | 0.872 (0.824, 0.923) |
| Sex (donor male, recipient female) | 1533 (18.2) | 4720 (14.9) | 1.269 (1.191, 1.352) |
| Cold Ischemia Time (Hr)–median (Q1, Q3) | 7.0 (5.2, 9.0) | 6.7 (5.0, 8.6) | 1.017 (1.011, 1.024) |
| Immunosuppression | |||
| Calcineurin inhibitor | 8228 (97.7) | 30114 (95.2) | 2.122 (1.826, 2.466) |
| Steroids | 7333 (87.0) | 25554 (80.8) | 1.600 (1.493, 1.715) |
| Follow up time (Years)–Median (Q1, Q3) | 3.9 (1.4, 6.7) | 3.1 (1.0, 6.1) | 1.030 (1.023, 1.038) |
Fig. 1.
Odds ratios for predictors of acute cellular rejection (OPTN). In multivariable analysis adjusted for age, gender, and immunosuppression, HBV status remained a strong negative predictor of ACR (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.51–0.67, p < 0.001). Strong positive predictors of ACR include black race, a race other than white, calcineurin inhibitors, and steroids.
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier patient and graft survival curves in liver transplant recipients with and without acute cellular rejection stratified by HBV status (OPTN). Patient and graft survival are better in HBV+ LT recipients compared to non-HBV+ recipients. In non-HBV+ recipients, ACR results in lower patient ((A), p < .001) and graft ((B), p < .01) survival. However, in HBV+ recipients, ACR had a trend toward impacting patient survival ((A), p = .06), but not graft ((B), p = .15) survival.
Table 3.
Univariate comparison of HBV+ recipients with and without acute cellular rejection in OPTN.
| Characteristic | HBV with ACR | HBV without ACR | Odds ratios (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients (%) | 279 (14.0) | 1719 (86.0) | |
| Age (Years) | 50.8 ± 9.6 | 53.5 ± 9.4 | 0.972 (0.959, 0.984) |
| Female Gender | 61 (21.9) | 306 (17.8) | 1.292 (0.948, 1.761) |
| Race & ethnicity | |||
| White | 108 (38.7) | 780 (45.4) | Reference |
| Black | 44 (15.8) | 154 (9.0) | 2.064 (1.396, 3.050) |
| Hispanic | 19 (6.8) | 117 (6.8) | 1.173 (0.694, 1.982) |
| Asian | 100 (35.8) | 637 (37.1) | 1.134 (0.847, 1.517) |
| Other | 8 (2.9) | 31 (1.8) | 1.864 (0.835, 4.160) |
| Calculated MELD score | 19.5 ± 11.7 | 18.5 ± 12.2 | 1.007 (0.996, 1.018) |
| Hepatocellular Carcinoma | 61 (21.9) | 579 (33.7) | 0.551 (0.408, 0.744) |
| Simultaneous liver-kidney transplant | 10 (3.6) | 108 (6.3) | 0.555 (0.286, 1.074) |
| Living Donor | 5 (1.8) | 63 (3.7) | 0.479 (0.191, 1.202) |
| Immunosuppression | |||
| Calcineurin inhibitor | 275 (98.6) | 1641 (95.5) | 3.268 (1.187, 8.998) |
| Steroids | 246 (88.2) | 1438 (83.7) | 1.456 (0.991, 2.140) |
| Donor Factors | |||
| Age (years) | 41.2 ± 16.5 | 41.7 ± 17.3 | 0.998 (0.991, 1.006) |
| Female gender | 103 (36.9) | 720 (41.9) | 0.812 (0.625, 1.055) |
| Donor BMI (kg/m2) | 26.3 ± 5.5 | 26.1 ± 5.4 | 1.008 (0.985, 1.031) |
| Spilt/partial graft | 8 (2.9) | 98 (5.7) | 0.488 (0.235, 1.014) |
| Donation after cardiac death | 7 (2.5) | 52 (3.0) | 0.824 (0.370, 1.833) |
| Donor Risk Index | 1.36 ± 0.35 | 1.39 ± 0.37 | 0.803 (0.554, 1.162) |
| Follow up time (Years)–Median (Q1, Q3) | 4.97 (1.73, 7.96) | 4.01 (1.37, 7.58) | 1.043 (1.006, 1.081) |
Only 155 HBV+ recipients had available information on HBIG use in the OPTN data (100 HBIG, 55 no HBIG). There was no statistically significant association between HBIG (17%) vs. no HBIG (7.2%) and rejection using OPTN data (p = 0.09, Table 4). In our own center-specific analyses, there was also no statistically significant association between HBIG use and biopsy-proven ACR (18.8% with HBIG vs. 12.5% without HBIG, p = 0.56, Table 4).
Table 4.
HBIG use in hepatitis b virus positive liver transplant recipients by rejection status.
| OPTN data (Patient n = 155) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| No HBIG | Yes HBIG | P-value | |
| No Rejection | 51 | 83 | 0.090 |
| Yes Rejection | 4 | 17 | |
| Total | 55 (35.5%) | 100 (64.5%) | |
| Single center data (Patient n = 64) | |||
|
| |||
| No HBIG | Yes HBIG | P-value | |
|
| |||
| No Rejection | 14 | 39 | 0.566 |
| Yes Rejection | 2 | 9 | |
| Total | 16 (25%) | 48 (75%) | |
Note: Acute cellular rejection (ACR) was biopsy-proven in the single center data. ACR within OPTN is center-reported and not verified by biopsy.
3.3. Direct effect of HBIG on lymphoproliferation in MLR
Increasing concentrations of HBIG (0 and 0.78–100 μg/mL) equivalent to clinical blood concentrations were tested in MLRs using PBMC of healthy volunteers (n = 7). The CPM (shown) was also converted to stimulation indices (Fig. 3A), with calculations to percentages of medium control to account for variability between individual volunteer responders (Fig. 3B). HBIG (i) did not have mitogenic effects (top), (ii) did not inhibit MLRs of normal laboratory volunteers to HLA-DR matched (middle) or completely mismatched (bottom) stimulators. This lack of effect was over a wide concentration range of HBIG covering sub-therapeutic (<8 μg/ml), therapeutic and even supra-therapeutic (>42 μg/ml) levels.
Fig. 3.
Effect of HBIG on lymphoproliferation in MLR. 1 × 105 responding PBMC (A) were cultured with 1 × 105 irradiated stimulator cells from an HLA-DR matched (Bx) or HLA mismatched (Ix) volunteer, in presence of indicated concentrations of HBIG (n = 7). Standard 3H-TdR assays were performed on indicated days and the data calculated as stimulation index (A) or as percentage of medium control (i.e. 100%) (B). Note that HBIG at 0.78–100 μg/ml (4.875–625 IU/L) failed to inhibit MLRs at any dose. Equivalent results were seen with both HLA DR-matched and HLA mismatched stimulators.
3.4. Direct effect of HBIG on the generation of new Tregs in MLR
CFSE labeled responding PBMC were cultured with PKH26 labeled x-irradiated stimulator cells in the presence of 0 and 0.78–50 μg/mL HBIG for 5, 7 and 9 days. Then flow cytometric analyses were performed (Methods) with the gating strategy shown in Fig. 4A. As previously reported with other agents [11–13], we tested the influence of HBIG on the development of newly generated Tregs in the proliferating fraction (Fig. 4B and C). The percentage of CD127−CD25+FOXP3+ total Tregs in the medium controls without HBIG comprised 10–40% of the CD4+ cells in the proliferating fraction depending on individual MLR combinations in each experiment, with the percentage of CD127−CD25HighFOXP3+ nTregs being slightly lower, also consistent with previous observations [11–13]. There was no significant effect of HBIG in any concentration on the generation of these Tregs in culture over that of media controls, in contrast to other immunoregulatory agents tested previously [12,13].
Fig. 4.
Effect of HBIG on the generation of FOXP3+ Tregs in the Treg-MLR. Lymphocytes were gated on CFSE bright/dim cells negative for CD127-PE and PKH26, followed by gating for CD4+CFSEdim (proliferating) or CD4+CFSEhigh (non-proliferating) responders. The expression of CD25 and FOXP3 was then analyzed as percentage of CD4+ cells that were CD127−CD25+FOXP3+ (total Tregs) or CD127−CD25HighFOXP3+ (nTregs) in the proliferating and non-proliferating CD4+ responders (A). The percentage of developing total Tregs and nTregs in responder cells stimulated with HLA-DR matched (B) and HLA mismatched (C) are shown (n = 7). HBIG at 0.78–100 μg/ml did not have any effect on generation of Treg subsets in the proliferating fraction.
4. Discussion
Several key findings in this report provide insight on ACR and the potential impact of HBIG over the most recent decade of LT for HBV. Consistent with historical data, HBV+ LT recipients in the current era have the lowest incidence of ACR of all LT recipients, and HBV is a strong independent predictor of lack of rejection on multivariate analysis. In addition, patient and graft survival does not appear to be affected by ACR compared to non-HBV+ recipients. This low ACR rate is likely independent of HBIG use, as there was no association from both national and local data. However, both data sets are limited by the small sample sizes recorded as being treated with/without HBIG. Finally, supporting no definitive association between HBIG and less rejection, HBIG at clinically applicable concentrations does not appear to inhibit immune responses or promote Treg development and expansion in MLR.
Our results confirm previous studies that have reported a low incidence of ACR following LT for HBV in the 1980s–90s, although mechanisms for this association have not been fully elucidated [8,10]. Chronic HBV infection is the result of an inadequate immune response towards the virus. Dendritic cells of patients with chronic HBV are impaired in their maturation and function, resulting in more tolerogenic rather than immunogenic responses and viral persistence [14]. Dendritic cells represent the most potent antigen-presenting cells and thus play an important role in the induction of specific T-cell rejection responses following organ transplantation. Thus, down-regulation of innate immunity may explain a mechanism whereby HBV+ recipients exhibit lower ACR rates [14]. This is in contrast to other viral hepatitides, such as HCV, in which the virus evades (rather than actively downregulates) host innate immune signaling through cleavage of immune signaling adaptor proteins, effectively inactivating viral RNA detection which contribute to persistence and chronicity [15,16].
Prior in vitro studies have also tested the impact of HBIG on alloimmune responses [10,17], in that similar to IVIG, it might inhibit the in vitro equivalent of acute rejection, the MLR, by suppressing lymphoproliferation, cytokine production and dendritic cell maturation [17–19]. Our in vitro studies, however, demonstrated the “inertness” of HBIG, i.e. there was no mitogenic or stimulatory capability, unlike other antibodies [20], and no inhibitory effect on normal MLRs. Most importantly, in contrast to prior reports on HBIG [17] and IVIG [18,19], HBIG at therapeutic concentrations did not show any enhancing (or inhibitory) role on the generation of regulatory T cells. With more centers using limited amounts of HBIG in favor of oral agents to prevent viral reactivation [5,6,20–22], this practice does not appear to have the consequence of higher rates of ACR.
There are important limitations to this study. First, data mainly came from a national database (OPTN) that has missing clinical variables. Information on HBIG use was only available in 7.6% of the HBV+ LT recipients, raising the possibility of type II error. Second, OPTN data are limited by the heterogeneity of program practices and lack of uniformity in follow-up. One seemingly counterintuitive finding was that ACR was associated with increased use of corticosteroids and calcineurin-inhibitors [Fig. 1]. However, it is likely that this association was seen because these agents are used to treat or prevent ACR. Third, the concentrations of HBIG utilized clinically in LT recipients (back-calculated to be ~42 mg/kg = trough level of ~5.3 mg/kg) or in our in vitro experiments (equivalent to be ~6.7 mg/kg) were much lower compared to IVIG for transplant recipient desensitization (2gm/kg) or in prior in vitro studies [23,24]. Thus, the question remains whether higher HBIG doses in clinical practice and concentrations in vitro would result in tolerogenic or immunosuppressive effects, like IVIG.
In conclusion, HBV+ LT recipients in the current era are at low risk for ACR and its associated complications. In vitro and in vivo, HBIG at current clinical concentrations does not appear to prevent ACR, inhibit immune responses or promote Treg development and expansion. These findings all support the immunological safety of minimizing both maintenance immunosuppressive therapy and the use of HBIG in HBV+ recipients.
Acknowledgments
Portions of this research were supported by a grant from the Northwestern University Medicine Electronic Database Warehouse (EDW) Young Investigator Seed Grant Program.
Dr. VanWagner is supported by the National Institutes of Health (F32 HL116151-01) and the American Liver Foundation (Chicago, IL).
The studies on the in vitro effects of HBIG were funded by Cangene, Winnipeg, Canada (PI: Levitsky; Co-PIs: Miller and Mathew).
Abbreviations
- HBV
Hepatitis B virus
- HCV
Hepatitis C virus
- LT
liver transplantation
- HBIG
Hepatitis B immunoglobulin
- ACR
acute cellular rejection
- HCC
hepatocellular carcinoma
- IVIG
intravenous immunoglobulin
- OPTN
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
- PBC
primary biliary cirrhosis
- PSC
primary sclerosing cholangitis
- UNOS
United Network for Organ Sharing
Footnotes
Disclosure
The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
- 1.Levitsky J, Doucette K. Viral hepatitis in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(Suppl 4):S116–S130. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02902.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Han SH, Ofman J, Holt C, King K, Kunder G, Chen P, et al. An efficacy and cost-effectiveness analysis of combination hepatitis B immune globulin and lamivudine to prevent recurrent hepatitis B after orthotopic liver transplantation compared with hepatitis B immune globulin monotherapy. Liver Transpl. 2000;6(6):741–748. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2000.18702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chen J, Yi L, Jia JD, Ma H, You H. Hepatitis B immunoglobulins and/or lamivudine for preventing hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation: a systematic review. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(5):872–879. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06151.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Buti M, Mas A, Prieto M, Casafont F, Gonzalez A, Miras M, et al. A randomized study comparing lamivudine monotherapy after a short course of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIg) and lamivudine with long-term lamivudine plus HBIg in the prevention of hepatitis B virus recurrence after liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2003;38(6):811–817. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(03)00087-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Stravitz RT, Shiffman ML, Kimmel M, Puri P, Luketic VA, Sterling RK, et al. Substitution of tenofovir/emtricitabine for Hepatitis B immune globulin prevents recurrence of Hepatitis B after liver transplantation. Liver Int. 2012;32(7):1138–1145. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02770.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cholongitas E, Vasiliadis T, Antoniadis N, Goulis I, Papanikolaou V, Akriviadis E. Hepatitis B prophylaxis post liver transplantation with newer nucleos(t)ide analogues after hepatitis B immunoglobulin discontinuation. Transpl Infect Dis. 2012;14(5):479–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2012.00741.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wong SY, Levitsky J. Chronic rejection related to hepatitis B immunoglobulin discontinuation in a liver transplant recipient. Transpl Int. 2011;24(12):e104–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Couto CA, Bittencourt PL, Farias AQ, Lallee MP, Cancado EL, Massarollo PC, et al. Human polyclonal anti-hepatitis B surface antigen immunoglobulin reduces the frequency of acute rejection after liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2001;43(6):335–337. doi: 10.1590/s0036-46652001000600007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Denys C, Toungouz M, Dupont E. Increased in vitro immunosuppressive action of anti-CMV and anti-HBs intravenous immunoglobulins due to higher amounts of interferon-gamma specific neutralizing antibodies. Vox Sang. 1997;72(4):247–250. doi: 10.1046/j.1423-0410.1997.7240247.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Farges O, Saliba F, Farhamant H, Samuel D, Bismuth A, Reynes M, et al. Incidence of rejection and infection after liver transplantation as a function of the primary disease: possible influence of alcohol and polyclonal immunoglobulins. Hepatology. 1996;23(2):240–248. doi: 10.1053/jhep.1996.v23.pm0008591847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Levitsky J, Miller J, Leventhal J, Huang X, Flaa C, Wang E, et al. The human “Treg MLR”: immune monitoring for FOXP3+ T regulatory cell generation. Transplantation. 2009;88(11):1303–1311. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181bbee98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Levitsky J, Gallon L, Miller J, Tambur AR, Leventhal J, Flaa C, et al. Allospecific regulatory effects of sirolimus and tacrolimus in the human mixed lymphocyte reaction. Transplantation. 2011;91(2):199–206. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318200e97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Levitsky J, Leventhal JR, Miller J, Huang X, Chen L, Chandrasekaran D, et al. Favorable effects of alemtuzumab on allospecific regulatory T-cell generation. Hum Immunol. 2012;73(2):141–149. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2011.11.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.van der Molen RG, Sprengers D, Binda RS, de Jong EC, Niesters HG, Kusters JG, et al. Functional impairment of myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells of patients with chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2004;40(3):738–746. doi: 10.1002/hep.20366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Arnaud N, Dabo S, Akazawa D, Fukasawa M, Shinkai-Ouchi F, Hugon J, et al. Hepatitis C virus reveals a novel early control in acute immune response. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(10):e1002289. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Li K, Foy E, Ferreon JC, Nakamura M, Ferreon AC, Ikeda M, et al. Immune evasion by hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease-mediated cleavage of the Toll-like receptor 3 adaptor protein TRIF. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(8):2992–2997. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408824102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kwekkeboom J, Tha-In T, Tra WM, Hop W, Boor PP, Mancham S, et al. Hepatitis B immunoglobulins inhibit dendritic cells and T cells and protect against acute rejection after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2005;5(10):2393–2402. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01029.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Jordan SC, Toyoda M, Kahwaji J, Vo AA. Clinical aspects of intravenous immunoglobulin use in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(2):196–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03400.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Jordan SC, Toyoda M, Vo AA. Intravenous immunoglobulin a natural regulator of immunity and inflammation. Transplantation. 2009;88(1):1–6. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a9e89a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cholongitas E, Goulis J, Akriviadis E, Papatheodoridis GV. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin and/or nucleos(t)ide analogues for prophylaxis against hepatitis b virus recurrence after liver transplantation: a systematic review. Liver Transpl. 2011;17(10):1176–1190. doi: 10.1002/lt.22354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wesdorp DJ, Knoester M, Braat AE, Coenraad MJ, Vossen AC, Claas EC, et al. Nucleoside plus nucleotide analogs and cessation of hepatitis B immunoglobulin after liver transplantation in chronic hepatitis B is safe and effective. J Clin Virol. 2013;58(1):67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2013.06.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Teperman LW, Poordad F, Bzowej N, Martin P, Pungpapong S, Schiano T, et al. Randomized trial of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate after hepatitis B immunoglobulin withdrawal after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2013;19(6):594–601. doi: 10.1002/lt.23628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Amran D, Renz H, Lack G, Bradley K, Gelfand EW. Suppression of cytokine-dependent human T-cell proliferation by intravenous immunoglobulin. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1994;73(2):180–186. doi: 10.1006/clin.1994.1186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Toungouz M, Denys C, Dupont E. Blockade of proliferation and tumor necrosis factor-alpha production occurring during mixed lymphocyte reaction by interferon-gamma-specific natural antibodies contained in intravenous immunoglobulins. Transplantation. 1996;62(9):1292–1296. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199611150-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]