SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Graft vs. host disease;
  • liver transplantation

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

This article reviews acute graft vs. host disease (GVHD) as a complication of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). The incidence, presentation, clinical course and outcome of GVHD after OLT are summarized and the pathogenesis is discussed, drawing parallels with GVHD after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Risk factors for GVHD after OLT are examined and the potential role of donor lymphocyte macrochimerism in the recipient peripheral blood as a diagnostic aid for GVHD is discussed. Finally, treatment of GVHD after OLT is reviewed with particular emphasis on the potential role of some of the newer biological agents.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

Graft vs. host disease (GVHD) following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is an uncommon complication but has a high mortality and poses a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Cellular GVHD occurs when immunocompetent donor lymphocytes originating from the transplanted liver undergo activation and clonal expansion, allowing them to mount a destructive cellular immune response against recipient tissues. Although humoral GVHD is commonly seen after an ABO-mismatched liver transplant when donor-derived lymphocytes produce antibodies to red-cell antigens, it usually causes only mild and self-limiting haemolytic anaemia of little clinical importance (1). Cellular GVHD (hereafter referred to as GVHD), on the other hand, is directed against MHC (and possibly minor HC antigens) and often results in severe multisystem disease with a high mortality. The aim of this review was to provide an update on GVHD after OLT, focusing on the clinical aspects and pathogenesis of the condition, with a view to improving early recognition and management. Where appropriate, similarities and differences between GVHD after OLT and GVHD after allogeneic bone marrow or stem-cell transplantation (SCT) are highlighted.

Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

Incidence

Graft vs. host disease after allogeneic SCT has been recognized as a common and serious clinical problem for more than three decades but it was not until 1988 that acute GVHD after OLT was first described (2). The patient, a 51-year-old male, was treated with a combination of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and high-dose corticosteroids, and very fortuitously, in the light of subsequent reports, made a good recovery (2). There are now more than 30 case reports and two recently published series of GVHD after OLT in adults. The true incidence of GVHD after OLT, however, remains uncertain. From the two reported series, one describing 13 cases of GVHD from a total of 1082 patients after OLT (1.2%) and the other seven patients from a total series of 453 patients (1.5%), the incidence of GVHD after adult OLT can be estimated at approximately 1–2% (3,4). This estimate is considerably higher than that reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). UNOS registry data collected on 4472 children and 32 481 adults who underwent OLT between 1995 and 2002 reports an incidence of GVHD of only 0.1% in both groups (personal communication, UNOS registry, September 2003). A possible explanation for the low incidence of GVHD in the UNOS registry is that GVHD is under-reported and that symptoms of GVHD may be incorrectly attributed to other causes such as infection and adverse responses to drugs.

Presentation of GVHD

The symptoms of GVHD after OLT usually become apparent between 1 and 8 weeks after transplantation, often after an initial uneventful recovery from surgery and discharge from hospital (3). In both children and adults the presenting symptom of GVHD after OLT is usually an isolated fever or skin rash. In approximately 15% of reported cases the disease remains confined to the skin but in most patients GVHD rapidly progresses to become a multisystem disease involving the skin, gastrointestinal tract and haematopoietic tissues (4).

The skin rash has a predilection for the palms and soles and is initially maculopapular but may progress to bullae formation and desquamation. The most common gastrointestinal symptom is diarrhoea secondary to loss of absorptive function caused by lymphocyte infiltration and destruction of the intestinal mucosa. Unlike GVHD after allogeneic SCT, where the biliary epithelium is a major target resulting in impaired liver function, the transplanted liver is not a target for GVHD, as both it and the immunocompetent cells responsible for GVHD are of donor origin. Marked neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia often occur several days after the initial presentation of GVHD and lead to life-threatening infection and haemorrhage.

Outcome

Although there are several case reports of adult patients recovering from GVHD after OLT (2,3,5–13), the reported mortality rate from the only two published series is very high at approximately 85% (3,4). The outcome is closely related to the pattern of GVHD. All of the seven reported adult cases where GVHD was confined to the skin recovered with treatment, whereas only six of the 44 (14%) reported adult cases with multisystem GVHD survived (Table 1). Death was usually attributable to overwhelming sepsis and often followed several weeks of supportive therapy. The outcome of GVHD is particularly poor for those patients who present with fever and 29 of the 30 (97%) reported adult cases died following presentation with fever (Table 1). The high mortality from GVHD after liver transplantation is comparable to that seen in patients who develop severe multisystem GVHD after allogeneic SCT (14). Recipient age does not appear to influence the outcome of adults with GVHD and the mean age of those who survive is the same as those with fatal disease (Table 1). It has been suggested that the outcome of GVHD after OLT in children may be better than in adults (15) and five of the eight reported cases of GVHD in children survived (15–17). However, a tendency towards preferential reporting of successful management of GVHD in the literature may obscure the true mortality.

Table 1.  Comparison of variables between patients surviving and those with a fatal outcome from graft vs. host disease after orthotopic liver transplantation in adults
VariableSurvivors n = 13aFatal outcome n = 38b p-value*
  1. 1Data not available in three cases.

  2. 2Data not available in 10 cases.

  3. 3Data not available in 12 cases.

  4. *Chi-squared test.

  5. aData compiled from references (2–5,8–13).

  6. bData compiled from references (5,9,10,18–20,31,36,37,67–74). NS = not significant.

Mean age of recipient (years)48.7148.22NS
Skin rash alone7/13 (54%)0/38 (0%)0.001
Fever at presentation1/13 (8%)29/38 (76%)0.001
Subsequent fever2/13 (15%)33/38 (87%)0.001
Pancytopaenia at presentation2/13 (15%)14/38 (37%)NS
Subsequent pancytopaenia8/13 (62%)30/38 (79%)NS
Interval from presentation to treatment, median (range)12 days (3–37d)8 days (1–27 d)NS
Day of presentation post OLT, median (range)20 days (12–114 d)24 days (7–115 d)NS
Acute rejection episode before GVHD3/13 (23%)5/26 (19%)3NS

In those patients fortunate enough to survive the initial phase of acute GVHD after OLT, the disease may resolve completely (2,5,8) or it may take a protracted course. Symptoms of skin rash and diarrhoea typically continue in a relapsing and remitting pattern and the eventual outcome is usually sepsis and death (18–20). This latter manifestation of GVHD is probably best regarded as ‘protracted acute GVHD’ as the symptoms differ from those of chronic GVHD. Chronic GVHD is a well-recognized and distinct syndrome that affects 25–50% of patients who have undergone allogeneic SCT (14) but has only been reported in two patients following OLT (11,21). It is characterized by fibrosis in the skin and subcutaneous tissues causing contractures and scarring alopecia, and there is often involvement of the salivary and lachrymal glands producing dry eyes and mouth similar to that seen in autoimmune disease. Affected patients are prone to infection, and may eventually succumb to sepsis. The two reported cases of chronic GVHD after OLT both followed living-related liver donation from HLA homozygous parental donors. The patients developed persistent alopecia and chronic skin disease and in one case symptoms were still present 4 years after transplantation (11,21).

Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

The essential requirements for the development of GVHD were defined almost four decades ago, based on observations made in lethally irradiated rodents reconstituted with allogeneic stem cells (22). First, the graft must contain immunologically competent cells; second, the recipient must be recognized as foreign by the graft; and third, the recipient must be unable to reject the graft before it mounts an effective immune response. These basic requirements are equally applicable to GVHD after OLT and it is helpful to bear them in mind when conceptualizing treatment of GVHD. However, it should also be noted that the situation in HLA-mismatched cell and organ transplantation is often more complex and both graft rejection and GVHD may occur simultaneously. Recent studies have provided many additional new insights into the pathophysiology of GVHD, both in terms of the interactions between alloreactive T cells and host alloantigens and with respect to the profound dysregulation of the cytokine network that characterizes GVHD. The findings from such studies have emphasized the complexity of the GVHD syndrome and highlighted the importance of interactions between innate and adaptive immunity in the development of GVHD. They have also been important in identifying new strategies for treatment.

The pathogenesis of acute GVHD after allogeneic SCT can be conceptualized by a three-phase model that is also useful as a framework for considering the pathogenesis of GVHD after OLT (Figure 1; 23).

image

Figure 1. Vicious circle of graft vs. host disease (GVHD). Tissue damage leads to production of pro-inflammatory cytokines augmented by intestinal translocation of LPS, which stimulates further production of pro-inflammatory cytokines from monocytes. In addition to causing further injury to local tissues, pro-inflammatory cytokines enhance recipient antigen-presenting cells (APCs) activity, promote development of donor alloreactive Th1 cells and activate nonspecific effector cells (NK cells and macrophages). The net result is amplification of target cell injury.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The 3-phase model: phase I

Phase I comprises the preparative regime (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy), which is an integral component of SCT and is toxic to many tissues, particularly the gastro-intestinal tract. Pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-1 are released by recipient macrophages and epithelial cells in response to direct tissue injury or to translocation of bacterial products (e.g. lipopolysaccharide) resulting from mucosal injury of the intestine (24,25). The production of such pro-inflammatory mediators greatly facilitates the development and profoundly affects the course of acute GVHD. Although patients undergoing OLT do not usually receive preparative treatment of the type used in SCT, the surgical procedure and other factors that may be present in the recipient, such as infection, may give rise to a systemic or local inflammatory response. This may in turn promote the development of GVHD through release of inflammatory mediators that heighten the activity of host antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and promote proliferation of alloreactive donor T cells.

The 3-phase model: phase II

The second phase of the three-phase model is activation and proliferation of alloreactive donor T cells. The development of GVHD after organ transplantation is largely dependent on the number of immunocompetent T cells transferred within the graft. Graft vs. host disease is well recognized after transplantation of the liver and small bowel, where both grafts contain substantial numbers of lymphocytes, but it is very rare after transplantation of solid organs that are not associated with large amounts of lymphoid tissue, such as the heart and kidney (26). It is estimated that between 109 and 1010 donor lymphocytes remain in the portal tracts and the parenchyma of a liver graft after flushing with cold preservation solution (27). In addition, variable amounts of lymphoid tissue located around the porta hepatis are inevitably transferred along with the donor liver. The total lymphocyte load transferred with a liver graft is comparable in magnitude to that typically administered during SCT (14), although the impact of cold ischaemia on the overall functional ability of the hepatic lymphocyte population is not clear.

The molecular events that occur when donor alloreactive T cells interact with recipient APCs are well characterized, and include engagement of the αβ T-cell receptor complex with HLA/peptide, together with the interactions between multiple costimulatory molecules including CD40–CD154 and CD28–B7 (28). After activation, donor T cells express the high-affinity IL-2 receptor and, under the influence of regulatory cytokines such as IL-12, IFN-γ and IL-18, undergo IL-2-dependent clonal expansion (14). They differentiate predominantly along the Th1 pathway into effector T cells that secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-2 and IFN-γ (23).

The 3-phase model: phase III

The third phase of GVHD is the effector phase. In mouse models, the development of acute GVHD is associated with a strongly polarized Th1 response characterized by heightened NK cell activity and antihost cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), whereas chronic GVHD is associated with a polarized Th2 response and autoantibody production (29,30). Acute GVHD in humans is also attributed predominantly to a Th1 response, although to regard it as a simple Th1 polarized response is an oversimplification (23). Cytotoxic T lymphocytes induce apoptosis in target cells through release of perforin or granzyme or through FasL–Fas interaction. Non-specific effector cells such as macrophages and NK cells recruited and activated by pro-inflammatory cytokines released from effector T cells or in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and other inflammatory mediators also contribute to and amplify the tissue damage (23).

The net result is a vicious circle in which tissue damage caused by effector cells leads to further release of inflammatory mediators and cytokines and to increased activity of host APCs, which in turn heightens further the destructive alloreactive T-cell response.

Distinct phenotype of hepatic T cells

The phenotype of hepatic T cells differs markedly from that of peripheral T cells. Hepatic T cells have a CD4:CD8 ratio of 1:3.5 (vs. 2:1 in peripheral blood) and the percentage of hepatic CD3+ cells expressing γδ receptors or NK cell markers is very high (7–54% vs. <6% in peripheral blood) (27). In addition to mature lymphoid cells, the donor liver may contain stem cells with the potential for haematopoiesis and it is interesting to note that donor-derived haematopoiesis has been reported after OLT in two adult recipients with GVHD (3,31). However, in both cases the haematopoiesis observed was probably a result of rather than the cause of GVHD, as any alloreactive immature T cells of donor origin are likely to have been deleted in the recipient thymus.

To what extent the distinctive phenotype of the hepatic T-cell population impacts on the development of GVHD after OLT is not clear. It is perhaps surprising, given the large number of lymphocytes residing in the liver, that GVHD is not seen more frequently after OLT. This may, in part, reflect the functional effects of hepatic lymphocytes, as γδ T lymphocytes produce predominantly Th2 cytokines, which down-regulate Th1 responses and suppress GVHD (32). The rarity of chronic GVHD after OLT is also intriguing and cannot as yet be explained. It may be that recovery from acute GVHD, which occurs in a small minority of patients, is dependent on rejection of donor cells by recipient T cells, in which case chronic disease would not be anticipated.

Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

The only two risk factors that have been clearly identified in the development of GVHD after OLT are the HLA match between donor and recipient and recipient age.

HLA

Although HLA matching is not undertaken for cadaveric OLT and does not improve graft survival, those recipients who by chance receive a well-matched graft appear to be at increased risk of GVHD (3,17,21). This may be because alloreactive hepatic lymphocytes from a well-matched graft are less likely to be rapidly destroyed in the recipient. In animal models of graft resistance following bone marrow transplantation, allogeneic lymphocytes are eliminated by the process of natural cytotoxicity, which is mediated predominantly by NK cells. Natural killer cells kill allogeneic cells unless they express appropriate HLA class I determinants which interact with inhibitory receptors (killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors or KIR) on the NK cell surface (33). If donor lymphocytes express shared HLA class I determinants with the recipient that engage effectively with KIR, they are protected from elimination and are able to populate the recipient and initiate GVHD. Unlike SCT, there is no preparative regime before OLT and the recipient T-cell-mediated response may be important in the elimination of allogeneic lymphocytes. In experimental animals GVHD is readily achieved by injecting parental lymphocytes into F1 recipients. Parental cells are not recognized as foreign by the recipient but they recognize and respond to recipient alloantigens. This situation is mirrored in living-donor OLT when a recipient receives a HLA-homozygous liver from one of their parents and it is associated with a particularly high risk of acute GVHD (21).

In a retrospective analysis of more than a thousand patients who had undergone OLT in a single centre, Smith et al. identified close HLA matching as a significant risk factor in the 12 patients who developed GVHD and concluded that multiple HLA class I mismatches protected against GVHD (3). In a retrospective analysis of 412 patients undergoing OLT in our own centre, the risk of GVHD in patients receiving a liver graft with 3–4 antigen mismatches at HLA-A and -B was 1%. In patients receiving a graft with only 0–1 antigen mismatches at HLA-A and -B, the risk of GVHD rose to 7.4%, and further increased to 12.5% if 0–1 DR mismatches were also present (Taylor et al., Cambridge, UK, September 2003, unpublished data.)

Recipient age

Recipient age is also a definite risk factor for developing GVHD after OLT in adults and this is in keeping with acute GVHD after allogeneic SCT where recipients older than 40 years are known to be at increased risk of severe GVHD (34). The two reported series of GVHD after adult OLT both suggest that GVHD is more common in older recipients (3,4). Smith et al. observed that recipients who were older than 65 years at the time of OLT were nine times more likely to develop GVHD than those aged less than 65 years. They also suggested that recipients of livers from donors more than 40 years younger were at greater risk of GVHD (3). The mean age of patients developing GVHD after OLT in our own centre was 59.3 years, compared with 48.1 years in patients who did not develop GVHD (p < 0.01; 4). The reason for the association between recipient age and GVHD after OLT is not clear but there are several potential explanations. The function of the immune system declines with age and this may impair the ability of the recipient to control the expansion of alloreactive T lymphocytes of donor origin. Colonization of the gastrointestinal tract with bacterial and viral pathogens may be increased in older recipients and this may prime donor lymphocytes that cross-react with target tissues in GVHD. Tissue repair slows with age, and intestinal GVHD may more readily lead to bacterial translocation and amplification of the GVHD response. Finally, recent evidence suggests that APCs from aged recipients stimulate a greater response in allogeneic cells (35). Interestingly, although older recipients are at increased risk of GVHD, the incidence of GVHD in children and adults reported to the UNOS registry is similar. The explanation for this apparent paradox is not clear and it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions, as the degree of underdiagnosis is not known in children.

Recipient immunocompromise

Recipient immune compromise before OLT has also been suggested as a risk factor for the development of GVHD (5), but there is no firm evidence for this in the two published series (3,4). In the series of seven patients with GVHD after OLT from our centre, five were transplanted for alcoholic cirrhosis (with or without hepatocellular carcinoma), one patient was retrospectively found to have bacterial septicaemia at the time of transplantation, and one patient was taking long-term azathioprine before OLT (4). Smith et al. found that cryptogenic cirrhosis was the only diagnosis encountered more frequently among patients with GVHD, though this series of 13 patients included a case of severe and rapidly fatal GVHD after OLT in a 15-year-old recipient with underlying combined immunodeficiency (3). Several of the published case reports of GVHD after OLT describe an episode of acute rejection before the onset of GVHD (2,7,10,11,36), arguing against the suggestion that recipient immunosuppression is a prerequisite for GVHD after OLT.

Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

The accurate diagnosis of acute GVHD after OLT has been hampered by the lack of a sensitive and specific diagnostic test. A skin biopsy showing epidermal dyskeratosis with epithelial cell necrosis is highly suggestive, but not pathognomonic. The first case report of GVHD after OLT identified the presence of cells expressing donor antigens in the peripheral blood and bone-marrow and commented on the identification of chimerism as an early diagnostic aid (2). However, although subsequent reports noted macrochimerism (where donor cells comprise >1% of circulating nucleated cells in the peripheral blood) in many patients with symptomatic GVHD, this was not a consistent finding (37,38) and the significance of microchimerism (where donor cells comprise <1% of circulating cells) is unclear (26). We evaluated the diagnostic potential of a low-sensitivity PCR-SSP technique and flow cytometry to detect peripheral blood chimerism in 33 OLT recipients who presented with symptoms suggestive of GVHD (4). Seven patients were found to have macrochimerism (with levels ranging from 4 to 50%) at a median of 5 weeks post OLT (range 2–8 weeks) and in all the diagnosis of GVHD was subsequently confirmed by histology or clinical course. Five of the seven patients with macrochimerism died. Twenty-six of the 33 patients did not have peripheral blood macrochimerism despite having symptoms consistent with GVHD; in all cases an alternative diagnosis was eventually established or recovery was rapid and spontaneous. Detection of macrochimerism may, in addition to confirming the diagnosis of established GVHD, be of value in the diagnosis of asymptomatic GVHD. Asymptomatic macrochimerism (25%) was reported by Joysey et al. in a patient who developed symptoms of GVHD 3 weeks later (10). However, it is not known if macrochimerism commonly precedes symptomatic GVHD.

Although macrochimerism is a useful diagnostic aid for patients with symptoms suggestive of GVHD, it is important to note that macrochimerism appears transiently in the majority of patients in the early postoperative period after OLT. Two prospective studies of donor lymphocyte chimerism after transplantation, one of 11 patients and one of 16 patients, showed that the presence of donor lymphocytes in the circulation peaks within the first week after transplantation when they comprise up to 24% of peripheral blood lymphocytes (9,13). Macrochimerism declines rapidly thereafter and is usually absent beyond 3–4 weeks post transplant.

Prevention of GVHD

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

Donor selection

Some transplant centres undertaking living donor OLT do not proceed if a potential parental donor is homozygous at all HLA loci because of the high risk of GVHD in this situation (21). Although GVHD is more common after cadaveric OLT when the donor and recipient have a close HLA match, it is not practicable to routinely allocate livers on the basis of HLA mismatch.

Depletion of donor lymphocytes

Complete depletion of donor T cells from allogeneic peripheral blood SCT eliminates the risk of GVHD (39,40) but is not desirable because it impairs engraftment and increases the relapse rate when SCT is performed for haematological malignancy. Depletion of T lymphocytes from the liver before transplantation would also eliminate the risk of GVHD. This could be achieved, at least in principal, by treating the cadaveric donor with antilymphocyte globulin (ALG) or by modifying the donor liver ex vivo either by irradiation or by perfusing it with lytic monoclonal antibodies directed against a lymphocyte cell-surface protein (41–43). However, whether these approaches can be justified is debatable, given the low incidence of GVHD after OLT. It is also conceivable that eliminating donor lymphocytes from the liver might have an adverse effect on graft survival (44). Recipients with the lowest levels of macrochimerism in the early post transplant period have a higher rate of acute rejection (9).

Reduced immunosuppresion

In recipients thought to be at particularly high risk of GVHD after OLT, either through close HLA matching or because of age-related risk factors, it has been suggested that using a less intensive immunosuppressive protocol (e.g. steroids and azathioprine only) combined with increased surveillance to detect acute rejection may be advantageous (3). The rationale for this approach is that in the absence of calcineurin blockade the recipient immune system is better able to reject donor lymphocytes, thereby preventing GVHD. Protecting high-risk patients from the serious consequences of GVHD, it is argued, justifies the substantial increase in acute rejection that is an inevitable consequence of this policy (3) Improved identification of those recipients at highest risk from GVHD would clearly lend weight to this approach.

Treatment of GVHD

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

The evidence base for selecting the most appropriate therapy for established acute GVHD after OLT is very limited and treatment is therefore largely empirical, although the extensive literature on the management of acute GVHD after SCT provides guidance. Surprisingly, the available data suggest that early treatment of GVHD after OLT may not necessarily affect the eventual outcome. Analysis of reported cases shows that the median time interval between presentation of GVHD and initiation of treatment is similar in survivors and non-survivors (12 and 8 days, respectively, Table 1).

Corticosteroids

First-line therapy for acute GVHD after SCT comprises corticosteroids and in approximately half of cases this produces long-term remission (23,45,46). The efficacy of corticosteroids in this setting is likely to be a result of their potent anti-inflammatory property as well as their lympholytic and immunosuppressive effects. There is general agreement that high-dose corticosteroids are also an important part of first-line treatment for acute GVHD after OLT (3,4).

Unfortunately, however, GVHD after OLT is less responsive to corticosteroids than GVHD after SCT. Most patients are therefore given additional immunosuppression, usually in the form of antibody preparations such as ALG, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) or OKT3, but there is no evidence that these agents alter the eventual outcome (2,5,10,31,36,37). This situation is similar to that for corticosteroid resistant GVHD after SCT where a durable response is rarely seen with second-line therapy, and for patients given ATG or OKT3 survival is less than 20% at 6 months (47–51). Administration of OKT3 results in a self-limited release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (including TNFα and IFNγ) in association with T-cell lysis. Because the pro-inflammatory cytokines produced may potentiate GVHD the use of OKT3 to treat GVHD after OLT cannot be recommended.

Interleukin-2 receptor antibodies

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against CD25 (basiliximab and daclizumab) have recently been used to treat patients with GVHD after both SCT and OLT (6,8,52–54). The clonal expansion of host reactive CTL during the development of GVHD is dependent on IL-2 and targeting CD25 (IL-2Rα, the high-affinity IL-2 receptor), which is expressed predominantly on activated T cells (55,56), is conceptually attractive. There are three reported cases where adult GVHD after OLT was treated with anti-CD25 mAbs and in all GVHD resolved, despite the presence of severe multisystem GVHD at presentation (6,8). In GVHD after SCT the response rate following administration of anti-CD25 mAbs in corticosteroid-resistant disease is generally 40–50% though this is offset by the significantly increased risk of life-threatening infectious complications requiring intensive therapy (52–54).

Anti-TNFα (monoclonal antibody)

The central role played by TNFα in the pathogenesis of GVHD has made it a logical therapeutic target. Infliximab, an anti-TNFα mAb that neutralizes soluble TNFα and induces lysis of cells responsible for its production, has recently been used to treat patients with corticosteroid-resistant GVHD after SCT. In a series of four cases, infliximab led to complete resolution of gastrointestinal disease and significant improvement in skin and liver disease in three patients (57). However, in a larger series of 11 cases, the response to infliximab was poor and only two patients survived (18%) (58). This may to some extent reflect differences in the dose and timing of administration and further controlled trials are required before anti-TNFα can be recommended for the treatment of GVHD after OLT.

Reduction in immunosuppressive therapy

Reduction and even complete withdrawal of immunosuppression has been proposed as a treatment for GVHD after OLT, on the basis that it may allow the recipient immune system to reject alloreactive donor lymphocytes more effectively (7,15,16). Reducing immunosuppression poses the risk of concurrent graft rejection (7). Moreover, freeing alloreactive donor T cells from the constraints of immunosuppression may paradoxically lead to a worsening of GVHD and currently there is insufficient evidence to support this approach.

Control of infection

The importance of preventing and controlling intercurrent infection in acute GVHD after SCT is well recognized (14,59), and the same principles should be applied for the management of GVHD after OLT. Broad spectrum antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis should be administered early in the disease process and consideration should be given to CMV prophylaxis, as GVHD is often accompanied by CMV infection (60,61). Most cases of GVHD after OLT develop pancytopaenia, which contributes to overwhelming infection and death. Growth factors, notably granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF), have been administered in several reported cases of severe GVHD after OLT and led to substantial recovery of neutrophil counts (3). Administration of appropriate recombinant haematopoietic growth factors to treat profound neutropaenia appears a reasonable approach although it is not clear whether it influences eventual outcome.

Future prospects

Recent insights into the pathogenesis of GVHD after SCT have provided several new potential therapeutic targets. Biological agents that deplete or prevent activation of alloreactive T cells may have a role and mAbs or fusion proteins that block T-cell costimulatory activity have been shown to be effective at preventing the development of acute GVHD in animal models although they are less effective at treating established disease (62,63). In view of the importance of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in initiating and potentiating GVHD, strategies that prevent LPS ligand/receptor interaction have stimulated much interest. Synthetic LPS antagonists have been shown to reduce GVHD in animal models and are being developed for clinical trial (64). Interleukin-12 is another potential target molecule. It is a key regulatory cytokine in the promotion of Th1 responses and in mouse models of acute GVHD; neutralizing IL-12 during the induction of acute GVHD prevents early mortality although it may produce chronic autoimmune disease (65). Finally, administration of keratinocyte growth factor (an epithelial tissue repair factor) reduces the severity of GVHD in mouse models by protecting against the intestinal mucosal damage that is important in the early pathogenesis of the disease (66).

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References

Graft vs. host disease after OLT is an uncommon but serious complication and merits a high index of clinical suspicion, especially in older recipients and those with well-matched grafts. Confirmed GVHD should be treated promptly with corticosteroids and possibly anti-CD25 mAbs along with chemoprophylaxis to prevent infection. The prognosis remains poor, but better understanding of the pathophysiology of GVHD has provided a number of new therapeutic targets and new agents are currently entering clinical trials to assess their efficacy in treating GVHD after SCT.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Clinical Features of GVHD After OLT
  5. Pathogenesis of GVHD After OLT
  6. Risk Factors in the Development of GVHD
  7. Macrochimerism in the Diagnosis of GVHD After OLT
  8. Prevention of GVHD
  9. Treatment of GVHD
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgement
  12. References
  • 1
    Triulzi DJ, Shirey RS, Ness PM, Klein AS. Immunohematologic complications of ABO-unmatched liver transplants. Transfusion 1992; 32: 82933.
  • 2
    Burdick JF, Vogelsang GB, Smith WJ et al.. Severe graft-versus-host disease in a liver-transplant recipient. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 689691.
  • 3
    Smith DM, Agura E, Netto G et al.. Liver transplant-associated graft-versus-host disease. Transplantation 2003; 75: 118126.
  • 4
    Taylor AL, Sudhindran S, Key T et al.. Monitoring systemic donor lymphocyte macrochimerism to aid the differential diagnosis of Graft versus Host disease following liver transplantation. Transplantation 2004; 77: 441446.
  • 5
    Jamieson NV, Joysey V, Friend PJ et al.. Graft-versus-host disease in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int 1991; 4: 6771.
  • 6
    Sudhindran S, Taylor A, Delriviere L et al.. Treatment of graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation with basiliximab followed by bowel resection. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 10241029.
  • 7
    Lehner F, Becker T, Sybrecht L et al.. Successful outcome of acute graft-versus-host disease in a liver allograft recipient by withdrawal of immunosuppression. Transplantation 2002; 73: 307310.
  • 8
    Rinon M, Maruri N, Arrieta A, Fernandez JR, Ortiz de Urbina J, Garcia Masdevall MD. Selective immunosuppression with daclizumab in liver transplantation with graft-versus-host disease. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 109110.
  • 9
    Jonsson JR, Hogan PG, Thomas R et al.. Peripheral blood chimerism following human liver transplantation. Hepatology 1997; 25: 12331236.
  • 10
    Joysey VC, Wood H, Ramsbottom S et al.. Lymphocyte chimaerism after organ transplantation. Transplant Proc 1992; 24: 25192522.
  • 11
    Nemoto T, Kubota K, Kita J et al.. Unusual onset of chronic graft-versus-host disease after adult living-related liver transplantation from a homozygous donor. Transplantation 2003; 75: 733736.
  • 12
    Redondo P, Espana A, Herrero JI et al.. Graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993; 29: 314317.
  • 13
    Schlitt HJ, Kanehiro H, Raddatz G et al.. Persistence of donor lymphocytes in liver allograft recipients. Transplantation 1993; 56: 10011007.
  • 14
    Burakoff S, Deeg J, Ferrera J, Atkinson K. Graft-vs.-host disease. In: BrinkhousK, StassS (eds). Haematology. New York , Basel: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1990.
  • 15
    Pinna AD, Weppler D, Berho M et al.. Unusual presentation of graft-versus-host disease in pediatric liver transplant recipients: evidence of late and recurrent disease. Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3: 236242.
  • 16
    Dunn SP, Krueger LJ, Butani L, Punnett H. Late onset of severe graft-versus-host disease in a pediatric liver transplant recipient. Transplantation 2001; 71: 14831485.
  • 17
    Kiuchi T, Harada H, Matsukawa H et al.. One-way donor-recipient HLA-matching as a risk factor for graft-versus-host disease in living-related liver transplantation. Transpl Int 1998; 11: S383S384.
  • 18
    Au WY, Ma SK, Kwong YL et al.. Graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation: documentation by fluorescent in situ hybridisation and human leucocyte antigen typing. Clin Transplant 2000; 14: 174177.
  • 19
    Au WY, Lo CM, Hawkins BR, Ma ES, Lie AK, Kwong YL. Evans' syndrome complicating chronic graft versus host disease after cadaveric liver transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 72: 527528.
  • 20
    Schmuth M, Vogel W, Weinlich G, Margreiter R, Fritsch P, Sepp N. Cutaneous lesions as the presenting sign of acute graft-versus-host disease following liver transplantation. Br J Dermatol 1999; 141: 901904.
  • 21
    Whitington PF, Rubin CM, Alonso EM et al.. Complete lymphoid chimerism and chronic graft-versus-host disease in an infant recipient of a hepatic allograft from an HLA-homozygous parental living donor. Transplantation 1996; 62: 15161519.
  • 22
    Billingham RE. The biology of graft-versus-host reactions. Harvey Lectures 196667; 62: 21–78.
  • 23
    Vogelsang GB, Lee L, Bensen-Kennedy DM. Pathogenesis and treatment of graft-versus-host disease after bone marrow transplant. Annu Rev Med 2003; 54: 2952.
  • 24
    Ferrara JL, Levy R, Chao NJ. Pathophysiologic mechanisms of acute graft-vs.-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 1999; 5: 347356.
  • 25
    Jacobsohn DA, Vogelsang GB. Novel pharmacotherapeutic approaches to prevention and treatment of GVHD. Drugs 2002; 62: 879889.
  • 26
    Triulzi DJ, Nalesnik MA. Microchimerism, GVHD, and tolerance in solid organ transplantation. Transfusion 2001; 41: 419426.
  • 27
    Norris S, Collins C, Doherty DG et al.. Resident human hepatic lymphocytes are phenotypically different from circulating lymphocytes. J Hepatol 1998; 28: 8490.
  • 28
    Goker H, Haznedaroglu IC, Chao NJ. Acute graft-vs-host disease: pathobiology and management. Exp Hematol 2001; 29: 259277.
  • 29
    De Wit D, Van Mechelen M, Zanin C et al.. Preferential activation of Th2 cells in chronic graft-versus-host reaction. J Immunol 1993; 150: 361366.
  • 30
    Via CS, Finkelman FD. Critical role of interleukin-2 in the development of acute graft-versus-host disease. Int Immunol 1993; 5: 565572.
  • 31
    Collins RH Jr, Anastasi J, Terstappen LW et al.. Brief report: donor-derived long-term multilineage hematopoiesis in a liver-transplant recipient. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 762765.
  • 32
    Imamura M, Tsutsumi Y, Miura Y, Toubai T, Tanaka J. Immune reconstitution and tolerance after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Hematology 2003; 8: 1926.
  • 33
    Parham P, McQueen KL. Alloreactive killer cells: hindrance and help for haematopoietic transplants. Nat Rev Immunol 2003; 3: 108122.
  • 34
    Urbano-Ispizua A, Rozman C, Pimentel P et al.. Risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease in patients undergoing transplantation with CD34+ selected blood cells from HLA-identical siblings. Blood 2002; 100: 724727.
  • 35
    Ordemann R, Hutchinson R, Friedman J et al.. Enhanced allostimulatory activity of host antigen-presenting cells in old mice intensifies acute graft-versus-host disease. J Clin Invest 2002; 109: 12491256.
  • 36
    Roberts JP, Ascher NL, Lake J et al.. Graft vs. host disease after liver transplantation in humans: a report of four cases. Hepatology 1991; 14: 274281.
  • 37
    Romagnuolo J, Jewell LD, Kneteman NM, Bain VG. Graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation complicated by systemic aspergillosis with pancarditis. Can J Gastroenterol 2000; 14: 637640.
  • 38
    Bhaduri BR, Tan KC, Humphreys S et al.. Graft-versus-host disease after orthotopic liver transplantation in a child. Transplant Proc 1990; 22: 23782380.
  • 39
    Korngold B, Sprent J. Lethal graft-versus-host disease after bone marrow transplantation across minor histocompatibility barriers in mice. Prevention by removing mature T cells from marrow. J Exp Med 1978; 148: 16871698.
  • 40
    Lowenberg B, Wagemaker G, Van Bekkum DW et al.. Graft-versus-host disease following transplantation of ‘one log’ versus ‘two log’ T-lymphocyte-depleted bone marrow from HLA-identical donors. Bone Marrow Transplant 1986; 1: 133140.
  • 41
    Goldberg LC, Bradley JA, Connolly J et al.. Anti-CD45 monoclonal antibody perfusion of human renal allografts prior to transplantation. A safety and immunohistological study. CD45 Study Group. Transplantation 1995; 59: 12851293.
  • 42
    Williams JG, Pirenne J, Mayoral JM et al.. Effect of donor pre-treatment with anti-lymphocyte globulin on small bowel transplantation in rats. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 11761177.
  • 43
    Shaffer D, Maki T, DeMichele SJ et al.. Studies in small bowel transplantation. Prevention of graft-versus-host disease with preservation of allograft function by donor pretreatment with antilymphocyte serum. Transplantation 1988; 45: 262269.
  • 44
    Starzl TE, Demetris AJ, Murase N, Ildstad S, Ricordi C, Trucco M. Cell migration, chimerism, and graft acceptance. Lancet 1992; 339: 15791582.
  • 45
    Hings IM, Filipovich AH, Miller WJ. Prednisolone therapy for acute graft-vs-host disease: short- vs lont-term treatment. A prospective randomised trial. Transplantation 1993; 56: 577.
  • 46
    Martin PJ, Schoch G, Fisher L. A retrospective analysis of therapy for acute graft-vs-host disease: initial treatment. Blood 1990; 76: 1464.
  • 47
    Deeg HJ, Loughran TP Jr, Storb R et al.. Treatment of human acute graft-versus-host disease with antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine with or without methylprednisolone. Transplantation 1985; 40: 162166.
  • 48
    Doney KC, Weiden PL, Storb R, Thomas ED. Treatment of graft-versus-host disease in human allogeneic marrow graft recipients. a randomized trial comparing antithymocyte globulin and corticosteroids. Am J Hematol 1981; 11: 18.
  • 49
    Khoury H, Kashyap A, Adkins DR et al.. Treatment of steroid-resistant acute graft-versus-host disease with anti-thymocyte globulin. Bone Marrow Transplant 2001; 27: 10591064.
  • 50
    McCaul KG, Nevill TJ, Barnett MJ et al.. Treatment of steroid-resistant acute graft-versus-host disease with rabbit antithymocyte globulin. J Hematother Stem Cell Res 2000; 9: 367374.
  • 51
    Remberger M, Aschan J, Barkholt L, Tollemar J, Ringden O. Treatment of severe acute graft-versus-host disease with anti-thymocyte globulin. Clin Transplant 2001; 15: 147153.
  • 52
    Massenkeil G, Rackwitz S, Genvresse I, Rosen O, Dorken B, Arnold R. Basiliximab is well tolerated and effective in the treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2002; 30: 899903.
  • 53
    Przepiorka D, Kernan NA, Ippoliti C et al.. Daclizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-2 receptor alpha chain antibody, for treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease. Blood 2000; 95: 8389.
  • 54
    Willenbacher W, Basara N, Blau IW, Fauser AA, Kiehl MG. Treatment of steroid refractory acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease with daclizumab. Br J Haematol 2001; 112: 820823.
  • 55
    Uchiyama T, Broder S, Waldmann TA. A monoclonal antibody (anti-Tac) reactive with activated and functionally mature human T cells. I. Production of anti-Tac monoclonal antibody and distribution of Tac (+) cells. J Immunol 1981; 126: 13931397.
  • 56
    Uchiyama T, Nelson DL, Fleisher TA, Waldmann TA. A monoclonal antibody (anti-Tac) reactive with activated and functionally mature human T cells. II. Expression of Tac antigen on activated cytotoxic killer T cells, suppressor cells, and on one of two types of helper T cells. J Immunol 1981; 126: 13981403.
  • 57
    Kobbe G, Schneider P, Rohr U et al.. Treatment of severe steroid refractory acute graft-versus-host disease with infliximab, a chimeric human/mouse antiTNFalpha antibody. Bone Marrow Transplant 2001; 28: 4749.
  • 58
    Jacobsohn DA, Hallick J, Anders V, McMillan S, Morris L, Vogelsang GB. Infliximab for steroid-refractory acute GVHD. A case series. Am J Hematol 2003; 74: 119124.
  • 59
    Deeg HJ. Graft-versus-host disease and the development of late complications. Transfus Sci 1994; 15: 243254.
  • 60
    Miller W, Flynn P, McCullough J et al.. Cytomegalovirus infection after bone marrow transplantation: an association with acute graft-v-host disease. Blood 1986; 67: 11621167.
  • 61
    Meyers JD, Flournoy N, Thomas ED. Risk factors for cytomegalovirus infection after human marrow transplantation. J Infect Dis 1986; 153: 478488.
  • 62
    Tamada K, Tamura H, Flies D et al.. Blockade of LIGHT/LTbeta and CD40 signaling induces allospecific T cell anergy, preventing graft-versus-host disease. J Clin Invest 2002; 109: 549557.
  • 63
    Via CS, Rus V, Nguyen P, Linsley P, Gause WC. Differential effect of CTLA4Ig on murine graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) development: CTLA4Ig prevents both acute and chronic GVHD development but reverses only chronic GVHD. J Immunol 1996; 157: 42584267.
  • 64
    Cooke KR, Gerbitz A, Crawford JM et al.. LPS antagonism reduces graft-versus-host disease and preserves graft-versus-leukemia activity after experimental bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Invest 2001; 107: 15811589.
  • 65
    Williamson E, Garside P, Bradley JA, More IA, Mowat AM. Neutralizing IL-12 during induction of murine acute graft-versus-host disease polarizes the cytokine profile toward a Th2-type alloimmune response and confers long term protection from disease. J Immunol 1997; 159: 12081215.
  • 66
    Clouthier SG, Cooke KR, Teshima T et al.. Repifermin (keratinocyte growth factor-2) reduces the severity of graft-versus-host disease while preserving a graft-versus-leukemia effect. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2003; 9: 592603.
  • 67
    Mazzaferro V, Andreola S, Regalia E et al.. Confirmation of graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation by PCR HLA-typing. Transplantation 1993; 55: 423425.
  • 68
    Sanchez-Izquierdo JA, Lumbreras C, Colina F et al.. Severe graft versus host disease following liver transplantation confirmed by PCR-HLA-B sequencing: report of a case and literature review. Hepatogastroenterology 1996; 43: 10571061.
  • 69
    Pageaux GP, Perrigault PF, Fabre JM et al.. Lethal acute graft-versus-host disease in a liver transplant recipient: relations with cell migration and chimerism. Clin Transplant 1995; 9: 6569.
  • 70
    Joseph JM, Mosimann F, Tiercy JM et al.. PCR confirmation of microchimerism and diagnosis of graft versus host disease after liver transplantation. Transpl Int 1999; 12: 468470.
  • 71
    Rosen CB, Ng CS, Moore SB et al.. Clinical and pathological features of graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Transplant 1993; 7: 5258.
  • 72
    DePaoli AM, Bitran J. Graft-versus-host disease and liver transplantation. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 170171.
  • 73
    Marubayashi S, Matsuzaka C, Takeda A et al.. Fatal generalized acute graft-versus-host disease in a liver transplant recipient. Transplantation 1990; 50: 709711.
  • 74
    Neumann UP, Kaisers U, Langrehr JM et al.. Fatal graft-versus-host-disease: a grave complication after orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 36163617.