Immunosuppression in pediatric heart transplantation: 2003 and beyond
Advances in immunosuppressive therapy have contributed to the improved long-term survival of pediatric heart transplant recipients over the past two decades. The introduction of cyclosporine in the early 1980s (the first oral agent to selectively target T-lymphocyte pathways) led to a dramatic reduction in acute rejection rates and improved graft and patient survival. A combination of cyclosporine, azathioprine, and corticosteroids (“triple therapy”) became the standard of care for pediatric and adult heart transplantation. The introduction of several new agents in the past decade has resulted in an almost infinite number of potential immunosuppressive regimens, none of which have been (or are likely to be) tested in randomized clinical trials in children. Tacrolimus is replacing cyclosporine as the primary calcineurin inhibitor in many programs. Mycophenolate mofetil, despite its increased cost, is likely to replace azathioprine as the adjunctive antimetabolite of choice in heart transplantation. Furthermore, target of rapamycin inhibitors, such as sirolimus, will likely be used in lieu of antimetabolite agents if their known myointimal antiproliferative effects are demonstrated to reduce or prevent graft vasculopathy (chronic rejection) in humans. With the availability of more potent immunosuppressive agents, early steroid withdrawal or complete steroid avoidance will become the standard of care in most pediatric transplant programs. Complete avoidance of steroids can be facilitated by the use of induction therapy with polyclonal anti-T-cell antibodies (eg, rabbit antithymocyte globulin [Thymoglobulin; SangStat Medical Corp., Fremont, CA]) or with the use of nondepleting antibodies that block the interleukin-2 receptor (eg, basiliximab, daclizumab). All these agents appear to have a good safety profile and are likely to lead to a resurgence of interest in induction therapy as a strategy to avoid chronic use of corticosteroids in children. As the elucidation of immunosuppressive pathways continues to advance, many newer immunosuppressive agents will be developed that target specific critical pathways in the immune response to the allograft. These advances should lead to more focused immunosuppression, greater drug synergism, reduction in the doses of individual agents, steroid-sparing regimens, and reduction in end-organ toxicities. The ultimate goal will be to define a perioperative therapeutic regimen that will result in a state of “transplantation tolerance,” in which the patient will indefinitely accept their allograft without the need for chronic immunosuppressive therapy.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Recommended Reading
- 3.Pietra B, Boucek M: Immunosuppression for pediatric cardiac transplantation in the modern era. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2000, 11:115–129. Covers mechanisms of action—pharmacology as well as clinical application of immunosuppressive therapy—in the pediatric heart transplant population.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Beniaminovitz A, Itescu S, Lietz K, et al.: Prevention of rejection in cardiac transplantation by blockade of the interleukin-2 receptor with a monoclonal antibody. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:613–619. This small (55 patients) but important study in adult heart transplant recipients showed that induction therapy with daclizumab safely reduces the frequency and severity of cardiac-allograft rejection during the induction period.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Thymoglobulin (antithymocyte globulin [rabbit] [prescribing information]. Menlo Park, CA: SangStat Medical Corporation; 1998.Google Scholar
- 13.Radley-Smith RC, Yacoub MH: Long-term results of pediatric heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 1992, 11:S227-S281.Google Scholar
- 16.Boucek MM, Edwards LB, Keck BM, et al.: The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: fifth official pediatric report—2001 to 2002. J Heart Lung Transplant 2002, 21:826–938. This detailed annual report focuses on survival and risk factors for survival after pediatric heart transplantation. Although efficacy of immunosuppressive agents cannot be established from this registry, current use of various immunosuppressive agents is described.Google Scholar
- 17.Ritschel WA: Microemulsion technology in the reformulation of cyclosporine: the reason behind the pharmacokinetic properties of Neoral. Clinic Transplant 1996, 10:364–373.Google Scholar
- 18.Hoyer PF, Boekenkamp A, Vester U, et al.: Conversion from Sandimmune to Neoral in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1996, 26:2259–2261.Google Scholar
- 22.A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression in liver transplantation. The U.S. Multicenter FK506 Liver Study Group [no authors listed]. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:1110–1115.Google Scholar
- 31.Sindhi R, Webber SA, Venkataramanan R, et al.: Sirolimus for rescue and primary immunosuppression in transplanted children receiving tacrolimus. Transplantation 2001, 72:851–855. One of the first reports of experience with sirolimus in a large (n = 50) cohort of children who have undergone solid-organ transplantation. This report confirmed adult studies showing that sirolimus can be effectively used with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Webber SA, Naftel DC, Parker J, et al.: Late rejection episodes greater than 1 year after pediatric heart transplantation: risk factors and outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant 2003, in press.Google Scholar
- 40.Klupp J, Morris RE: Unapproved non-biologic agents. In Pediatric Solid Organ Transplantation. Edited by Tejani AH, et al. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 2000:121–134.Google Scholar