Bacteriology
Infections after the use of alemtuzumab in solid organ transplant recipients: a comparative study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2009.08.017Get rights and content

Abstract

We undertook a retrospective cohort study comparing infection in solid organ transplant recipients receiving alemtuzumab (n = 726) versus basiliximab (n = 215) or antithymocyte globulin (ATG) (n = 85). Eighty-one percent of patients had kidney transplants. Overall, 33% of patients in the alemtuzumab group (240/724) developed infection compared with 40% (87/215) in the basiliximab group (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.99; P = .04). The frequency of infection was similar in the alemtuzumab and ATG groups (33% versus 36%, respectively, P = .53). The frequency of fungal infections, most caused by Candida spp., was similar in the alemtuzumab and basiliximab groups (10% versus 9%); disseminated fungal infection occurred in 68% of the patients with fungal infection receiving alemtuzumab and in 30% of the patients with fungal infection receiving basiliximab (OR, 4.76; 95% CI, 1.58–14.28; P = .003). Basiliximab posed a higher risk than alemtuzumab for infection. Disseminated candidal infections were more common in patients receiving alemtuzumab.

Introduction

Major advances in transplantation techniques and understanding of transplant biology have greatly improved the survival of renal transplant recipients. Each year, approximately 15 000 renal transplants are performed in the United States, with a 5-year survival exceeding 80% (http://www.unos.org [United Network for Organ Sharing, n.d.]). However, infection remains a major challenge in the solid organ transplant recipient and now exceeds rejection as the precipitating factor for hospitalization in patients in the first 2 years after a solid organ transplant (Dharnidharka et al., 2004).

In recent years, lymphocyte depletion has been used with increasing frequency as an induction strategy after transplantation and for treatment of rejection (Shapiro et al., 2005a, Shapiro et al., 2005b). Alemtuzumab (Campath-IH; Berlex, Montville, NJ) is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against CD52, a cell surface antigen expressed on B and T lymphocytes, monocytes, and natural killer (NK) cells (Ferrajoli et al., 2001, Flynn and Byrd, 2000). It is a powerful cytolytic agent and is used therapeutically in bone marrow transplantation (Dumont, 2002, Hale, 2002) and several autoimmune diseases (Marsh and Gordon-Smith, 2001). Infusion of alemtuzumab results in marked decrement in circulating levels of NK cells, B cells, T lymphocytes, macrophages, and monocytes. Although numbers of NK cells, B cells, and monocytes typically return to normal levels within 3 to 6 months of alemtuzumab use, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells may remain low for years (Ferrajoli et al., 2001). In a trial of alemtuzumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, there was profound and persistent peripheral blood lymphopenia in the alemtuzumab-treated patients, affecting predominantly the CD4+ subset. Median CD4+ and CD8+ peripheral blood lymphocyte counts at 73 to 84 months after therapy were 185 and 95 cells/μL, respectively (Issacs et al., 2001). More recently, alemtuzumab has come into use for induction immunosuppression and treatment of rejection for solid organ transplantation in some transplantation centers (Gourishankar et al., 2002, Magliocca and Knechtle, 2006, Morris and Russell, 2006, Shapiro et al., 2005a, Shapiro et al., 2005b). Long-lasting lymphopenia has been confirmed in patients treated with alemtuzumab for induction of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation administered maintenance mycophenolate mofetil or sirolimus in addition to calcineurin inhibitors (Knechtle et al., 2003, Knechtle et al., 2004).

Depletion of lymphocytes would be expected to result in an increased risk of opportunistic infections. Some series have found that alemtuzumab use was associated with an increase in the frequency of unusual infections (Abad et al., 2003, Magliocca and Knechtle, 2006, Martin et al., 2006, Nath et al., 2005, Silveira et al., 2007). However, others have not confirmed these findings (Barth et al., 2006), and thus, whether or not alemtuzumab use translates into an increased risk of infection in solid organ transplant recipients is unclear.

We performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the risk of infection in patients receiving alemtuzumab induction compared with basiliximab/daclizumab or antithymocyte/antilymphocyte globulin at time of transplantation. We focused particularly on fungal infections as the main outcome.

Section snippets

Sources of data

Using data from a prospectively maintained transplant database, supplemented by chart review and pharmacy billing records, we identified all 1738 patients who had undergone renal, liver, and kidney–pancreas transplantation at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2005. For this retrospective cohort study, the cohort was constructed by including patients who received at least 1 dose of alemtuzumab as the alemtuzumab group. For retransplanted

Patient demographics

The patients were followed longitudinally at our institution for a mean of 13 months (SD, 8.3). Patient demographics and clinical features are shown in Table 2. There were 215 patients in the basiliximab/daclizumab group (henceforth called basiliximab group, 9 patients received daclizumab), 726 patients in the alemtuzumab group, and 85 in the ATG or OKT3 group (henceforth called ATG group, 1 patient received OKT3). Because of limitations in data availability, we were not able to obtain an equal

Discussion

Our study shows that although the overall risk of infection was not increased with the use of alemtuzumab and was lower than that with basiliximab, the infections that did occur were more severe and were more likely to be disseminated. Our interest was particularly in fungal infections, and we found that disseminated fungal infection and CMV viremia occurred more commonly in the alemtuzumab-treated group. However, patients who were given alemtuzumab were also more likely to receive

References (41)

  • SilveiraF.P. et al.

    Bloodstream infections in organ transplant recipients receiving alemtuzumab: no evidence of occurrence of organisms typically associated with profound T cell depletion

    J. Infect.

    (2006)
  • SinghN. et al.

    Antifungal management practices in liver transplant recipients

    Am. J. Transplant.

    (2008)
  • SundbergA.K. et al.

    Pilot study of rapid steroid elimination with alemtuzumab induction therapy in kidney and pancreas transplantation

    Transplant. Proc.

    (2005)
  • WatsonC.J. et al.

    Alemtuzumab (CAMPATH 1H) induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation—efficacy and safety at five years

    Am. J. Transplant.

    (2005)
  • AbadS. et al.

    Tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium bovis after alemtuzumab administration

    Clin. Infect. Dis.

    (2003)
  • AsciogluS. et al.

    Defining opportunistic invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplants: an international consensus

    Clin. Infect. Dis.

    (2002)
  • BarthR.N. et al.

    Outcomes at 3 years of a prospective pilot study of Campath-1H and sirolimus immunosuppression for renal transplantation

    Transpl. Int.

    (2006)
  • DeardenC.

    The role of alemtuzumab in the management of T-cell malignancies

    Semin. Oncol.

    (2006)
  • DumontF.J.

    CAMPATH (alemtuzumab) for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and beyond

    Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther.

    (2002)
  • FerrajoliA. et al.

    Alemtuzumab: a novel monoclonal antibody

    Expert Opin. Biol. Ther.

    (2001)
  • Cited by (35)

    • Alemtuzumab in renal transplantation. Reviews of literature and usage in the United Kingdom

      2022, Transplantation Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      Table 1 summarises the evidence on the effect of alemtuzumab induction on AR, graft survival, patient survival and adverse events in KTR. However, there is a lot of variation in the sample population, intervention and comparator groups, maintenance immunosuppression, duration of follow-up and outcome measures [51,63,64]. Notwithstanding these variations, there are distinct, consistent themes that run through these studies.

    • Direct T-cell Inhibition and Agents Targeting T-cell Migration and Chemotaxis

      2020, Infectious Disease Clinics of North America
      Citation Excerpt :

      A single-center retrospective study with a large cohort of mixed SOT recipients that received alemtuzumab (n = 726) reported in fact that the risk of posttransplant infection was slightly lower when compared with the basiliximab group, although this difference was mainly driven by a lower rate of urinary tract infection (likely due to lower requirements of antirejection therapy). However, the incidence of disseminated fungal infection, mainly invasive candidiasis, was higher with alemtuzumab (OR: 4.76; 95% CI: 1.58–14.28; P-value = .003).19 Similar findings have been reported for small bowel transplant recipients.65

    • Management of Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

      2017, Clinics in Liver Disease
      Citation Excerpt :

      Basiliximab was not found to be associated with higher risk for CMV or PTLD in one study,53 and another study actually suggests that risk of CMV infection may be lower when daclizumab is used in combination with tacrolimus compared with tacrolimus combined to steroids.54 Alemtuzumab is associated with severe immunosuppression, and case reports of hepatitis C reactivation, zoster infection, and cryptococcus after LT has raised cautions about using this drug.55–57 There are 2 main stages in application of immunosuppression after LT: (1) induction and (2) maintenance.

    • Risk Factors and Approaches to Infections in Transplant Recipients

      2014, Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases
    • Epidemiology and risk factors of infections after solid organ transplantation

      2012, Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia Clinica
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text