Clinical Uses of Polyclonal and Monoclonal Antilymphoid Sera

  • Mary Ann Simpson
  • Anthony P. Monaco
Chapter
Part of the Medical Intelligence Unit book series (MIU.LANDES)

Abstract

The early attempts at clinical transplantation were effectively limited to kidney transplants and relied on non-specific immunosuppression based on steroids and cytotoxic agents. The resulting poor graft survival (approximately 50% at one year for recipients of cadaver allografts) sparked research efforts to develop improved immunosuppressive protocols which specifically targeted the lymphocytes responsible for graft loss and spared the recipient unwanted side effects. Two major areas of emphasis emerged: biologic immunosuppressives consisting of antibody preparations directed against lymphocyte surface proteins and pharmacologic immunosuppressives consisting of drugs whose major effects were on lymphocyte metabolism.

Keywords

Acute Rejection Graft Survival Renal Allograft Transpl Proc Delay Graft Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wechter WJ, Morell RM, Bergan J et al. Extended treatment with Antilymphocyte Globulin (ATGam) in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1975; 28: 534–360.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Najarian JJ, Simmons RL, Condie R, et al. Seven year’s experience with antilymphocyte globulin for renal transplantation. Ann Surg 1976; 184: 352–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gozzo JJ, Wood ML, Monaco AP. In vitro antilymphocyte serum cell-binding affinity as an indicator of in vivo immunosuppressive ability. Surg Forum 1972; 23: 298–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gozzo JJ, Wood ML, Monaco AP. Studies on heterologous antilymphocytes serum in mice. IX. In vitro assay by indirect leukoagglutination. Transplantation 1972; 14: 358–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gozzo JJ, Wood ML, Monaco AP. Indirect leukoagglutination: An in vitro assay for antilymphocyte serum. Surg Forum 1971; 22: 277–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas F, Cunningham P, Thomas J et al. Superior renal allograft survival and decreased rejection with early high dose and sequential multi-species antilymphocyte globulin therapy. Transplant Proc 1987; 19: 1874–1876.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoitsma AJ, van Lier LH, Reekers P, Koene RA. Improved patient and graft survival after treatment of acute rejections of cadaveric renal allografts with rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Transplantation 1985; 39: 274–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monaco AP. Biological immunosuppression: Polyclonal antilymphocyte sera, monoclonal antibody, and donor-specific antigen. Organ Transplantation and Replacement 1988; 83-117, ed James Cerilli, JB Lippincott Co.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohler G, Milstein C. Derivation of specific antibody producing tissue culture and tumor lines by cell fusion. Eur J Immunol 1976; 6: 511–519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latham WC, Cooney RM, Brown KJ et al. Preparation of purified antilymphocyte serum on an immuno-absorbent column. In Proceedings of a Symposium on Standardization of Antilymphocyte Serum 1970; 16: 171–178.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monaco AP, Codish SD. Survey of the current status of clinical uses of antilymphocyte serum. Surg Gyn Obstet 1976; 142: 417–426.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Birkeland SA. The use of antilymphocyte globulin in renal allograft rejection: A controlled study. Postgrad Med J 1976; 152(Suppl 5): 82–91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shields CF, Cosimi AB, Tolkoff-Rubin N et al. Use of antilymphocyte globulin for reversal of acute allograft rejection. Transplantation 1979; 28(6): 461–466.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson PW, Cosimi AB, Delmonico FL et al. Antithymocyte globulin as primary treatment of renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1983; 36: 587–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filo RS, Smith EJ, Leapman SB. Therapy for acute cadaveric renal allograft rejection with adjunctive antithymocyte globulin. Transplantation 1980; 30(6): 445–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howard RJ, Condie RM, Sutherland DER et al. The use of antilymphoblast globulin in the treatment of renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1977; 24(6): 419–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hardy MA, Nowygrod R, Elberg A et al. Use of ATG in treatment of steroid resistant rejection. Transplantation 1980; 39: 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Streem SB, Novick AC, Braun WE et al. Antilymphoblast globulin for treatment of acute renal allograft rejection. Transpl Proc 1983; 14: 590–592.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Light JA, Alijan MR, Biggers JA et al. Antilymphocyte globulin (ALG) reverses “irreversible” allograft rejection. Transpl Proc 1981; 13: 475–477.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stiller CR, Keown PA. Cyclosporine therapy in perspective. Prog Transplant 1984; 1: 11–29.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matas AJ, Tellis VA, Quin T et al. ALG treatment of steroid resistant rejection in patients receiving cyclosporine. Transplantaion 1986; 41: 579–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richardson AJ, Higgins RM, Liddington M et al. Antithymocyte globulin for steroid resistant rejection in patients immunosuppressed with triple therapy. Transplant Int 1989; 2: 27–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benvenisty AI, Tannenbaum GA, Cohen D et al. Use of antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine to treat steroid resistant episodes in renal transplant patients. Transpl Proc 1987; 19: 1889–1891.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chatenoud ML, Ferran C, Legendre C et al. In vivo cell activation following OKT3 administration. Systemic cytokine release and modulation by corticosteroid. Transplantation 1990; 49: 697–671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cosimi AB, Burton RC, Colvin RB et al. Treatment of acute renal allograft rejection with OKT3 monoclonal antibody. Transplantation 1981; 32: 535–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldstein G. An overview of Orthoclone OKT3. Transpl Proc 1968; 18: 927–930.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thistletwaite JR, Cosimin AB, Delmonico FL et al. Evolving use of OKT3 monoclonal antibody for treatment of renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1984; 38: 694–699.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Delmonico FL and Cosimi AB. Monoclonal antibody treatment of human allograft recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988; 166: 89–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thistletwaite JR, Gaber AO, Haag BW. OKT3 treatment of steroid resistant renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1987; 43: 176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norman DJ and Shield CF. Orthoclone OKT3: first line therapy or last option? Transpl Proc 1986; 18: 949–952.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Widmer U, Frei D, Keusch G et al. OKT3 treatment of steroid and/or antithymocyte lobulin resistant renal allograft rejection occurring on triple baseline immunosuppression, including cyclosporine A. Transpl Proc 1988; 20(Suppl 6): 90–9–5.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ponticell C, Rivolta E, Tarantino A et al. Treatment of severe rejection of kidney transplant with Orthoclone OKT3. Clin Transpl 1987; 1: 99–106.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gaber AO, Thistletwaite RJ, Ag BW et al. OKT3 as either primary or seconday treatment for renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1987; 43: 176–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D’Allesandro AM, Pirsch JD, Stratta RJ et al. OKT3 salvage therapy in a quadruple immunosuppressive protocol in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1989; 47: 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cosimi AB, Cho SI, Delmonico Fl et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing OKT3 and steroids for treatment of hepatic allograft rejection. Transplantation 1987; 43: 91–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fung J, Iwatsuki S, Gordon R et al. Other organ transplant experiences with OKT3. Nephron 1989; 55: 306–213.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barr ML, Sanchez JA, Seche LA et al. Anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody induction therapy. Immunological equivalency with triple drug therapy in heart transplantation. Circulation 1990; 82(supple 5): IV291–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Novick AC, Braun WE, Steinmuller D et al. A controlled, randomized, double blind study of antilymphoblast globulin incadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1983; 35: 175–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Condie RM, Waskowsky KE, Hall BE et al. Efficacy of Minnesota antilymphocyte globulin in renal transplantation: a multicenter, placebo controlled, randomized double-blind study. Transpl Proc 1985; 17: 1304–1306.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sommer BJ, Ferguson RM. Three immediate post renal transplant adjunct protocols combined with maintenance cyclosporine. Transpl Proc 1985; 17: 1235–1238.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kreis H, Cjkoff N, Chatenoud L et al. Prolonged administration of a monoclonal anti-T3 cell antibody (Orthoclone OKT3) to kidney allograft recipients. Transpl Proc 1985; 17: 2734–2737.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Monaco AP. Clinical aspects of monoclonal antibody therapy in kidney transplantation. Transplantation Science 1992; 2: 9–13.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ferguson RM et al. A multicenter experience with sequential ALG/cyclosporine therapy in renal transplantation. Clin Transpl 1988; 2: 285–290.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goldman M, Abramowicz D, DePauw L et al. Beneficial effect of prophylactic OKT3 in cadaver kidney transplantation:a comparison with cyclosporine A in a single center prospective randomized trial. Transpl Proc 1991; 23: 1046–1049.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shield, CF. Effective induction immunosuppression for cadaver renal transplantation at the St. Francis Regional Medical Center. In: Terasaki PI ed, Clinical Transplant 1990. Los Angeles UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1990, 265.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johnson CP, Simmons, RL, Sutherland DER et al. A randomized trial comparing cyclosporine with antilymphblast globulinazathioprine fro renal allograft recipients; results at 2.5–6 years. Transplantation 1988; 45:380–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Belitsky P, MacDonald AS, Cohen AD et al. Comparison of antlymphocyte globulin and continuous iv cyclosporine Aasinduction immunosuppression for cadaver kidney transplants; a prospective, randomized study. Transpl Proc 1991; 23: 999–1002.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Matas AJ, Tellis VA, Quinn TA et al. Individualization of immediate post transplant immunosuppression: the value of antilymphocyte globulin in patients with delays graft function. Transplantation 1988; 45: 406–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Michael HJ, Francos GC, Burke JF et al. Comparison of the effects of cyclosporine versus antilymphocyte globulin on delayed graft function in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1989; 48: 805–810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cecka JM, Cho YW, Terasaki PI. Analysis of the UNOS Scientific Renal Transplant Registry at three years — early events affecting transplant success. Transplantation 1992; 53: 59–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Delmonicaom FL, Fullerm TC, Russell PS et al. Variation in patient response associated with different preparations of murine monoclonal antibody therapy. Transplantation 1989; 47: 92–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rubin RH, Cosimi AB, Hirsch MS et al. Effects of antithymocyte globulin on cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1981; 31: 143–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rubin RH, Tolkoff-Rubin N. The impact of infection on the outcome of transplantation. TransplantProc 1991; 23: 2608–2609.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Penn I. Cancers complication organ transplantation. NEJM 1990; 232: 1767–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Malatack JF, Gartner JC, Urbach AH, Zitelli BJ. Orthotopic liver transplantation, Epstein Barr virus, cyclosporine, and lymphoproliferative disease: a growing concern. J Pediatr 1991; 118: 667–673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Legendre CF. Effect of immunosuppression on the incidence of lymphoma formation. In: Roundtable Report: Immunosuppression and Lymphoproliferative Disorders. I. Penn, ed p. 11, Parsippany, NJ PRO/COM.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Swinnen LJ, Costanzo-Nordin MR, Fisher SG et al. Increased incidence of lymphoproliferative disorders after immunosuppression with the monoclonal antibody OKT3 in cardiac transplant recipients. NEJM 1990; 323: 1723–1727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schlitt HJ, Kurrle R, Wonigeit K. T-cell activation by monoclonal antibodies directed to different epitopes on the human T cell receptor/CD3 complex: evidence for two different modes of activation. Eur J Immunol 1989; 19: 1649–1653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Frenken LA, Hoitsma AJ, Tax WJ et al. Prophylactic use of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody WT32 in kidney transplantation. Transpl Proc 1991; 23: 1072–1075.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Land W. Monoclonal antibodies in 1991: new potential options inclinical immunosuppressive therapy. Clin Transpl 1991; 5: 493–497.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Waid TH, Lucas BA, Thompson JS et al. Treatment of acute cellular rejection with T10B9.1A-31 or OKT3 in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1992; 53: 80–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cosimi AB, Delmonico FL, Wright JK et al. Prolonged survival of nonhuman primate renal allograft recipients treated only with anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody Surgery 1990; 108: 406–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sablinski T, Sayegh MH, Kut J et al. The importance of targeting the CD4+ T cell subset at the time of antigenic challenge for induction of prolonged vascularized allograft survival. Transplantaion 1992; 53: 219–225.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shizuru JA, Seydel KB, Flavin TF et al. Induction of donor specific unresponsiveness to cardiac allografts in rats by pretransplant anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody therapy. Transplantation 1990; 50: 366–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Horneff G, Burmester GR, Emmrich F et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34: 129–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Delmonico FL, Knowles R, Colvin R et al. Immunosupression of cynomolgus monkeys with humanized OKT4a monoclonal antibodies. Transpl Proc 1993; 25: 784–786.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kupiec-Weglinski J, Diamenstein T, Tilney N. Interleukin-2 receptor targeted therapy-rationale and application in organ transplantation. Transplantation 1988; 46: 785–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kirkman RL, Shapireo ME, Carpenter CB et al. A randomized prospective trial of anti-Tac monoclonal antibody in human renal transplantation. Transplantation 1991; 51: 107–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Friend PJ, Waldmann H, Cobbold S et al. The anti IL-2 receptor monoclonal antibody YTH-906 in liver transplantation. Transpl Proc 1991; 23: 1390–1393.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Soulillou JP, Cantarovich D, Le M et al. Randomized controlled trial of a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-2 receptor (33B3.1) as compared with rabbit antithymocyte globulin for prophylaxis against rejection in renal allografts. NEJM 1991; 322: 1175–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pober JS, Cotran R. The role of endothelial cells in inflammation. Transplantation 1990; 50: 537–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Horgan MJ, Ge M, Gu J et al. Role of ICAM-1 in neutrophil mediated lung vascular injury after occlusion and reperfusion. Am J Physiol 1991; 261: H1578–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Cosimi AB, Conti D, Delmonico FL et al. In vivo effects of monoclonal antibosy to ICAM-1 (CD54) in nonhuman primates with renal allografts. J Immunol 1990; 144: 4604–4609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Haug CE, Colvin RB, Delmonico FL et al. A phase in trial of immunosuppression with anti-ICAM-1 (CD54) MoAb in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1993; 55: 766–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Ann Simpson
  • Anthony P. Monaco

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations