Conversion to Belatacept in kidney transplant recipients with chronic antibody-mediated rejection (CAMR)

Abstract

BackgroundThe costimulatory inhibitor Belatacept (Bela) has been shown to be an effective alternative in several clinical situations, including chronic antibody-mediated rejection, calcineurin toxicity, and de novo alloantibody formation. To further explore the usefulness of Belatacept under various clinical scenarios, we performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of all recipients who had a BPAR diagnosis of CAMR and were converted to a Belatacept maintenance immunosuppression regimen after kidney transplantation. Material and methodWe conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all kidney transplants adult patients at SUNY Upstate Medical Hospital from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2021. Our inclusion criteria were the patients who have been diagnosed with CAMR according to their renal biopsy based on the 2013 Banff criteria. The primary objective was to compare the kidney viability and function using GFR between the two interest groups and finally compare the outcomes. ResultsA total of 48 patients met our inclusion criteria based on the kidney biopsy result, which showed chronic antibody-mediated graft rejection (CAMR). Nineteen patients (39.6%) were converted to the Belatacept, and we continued the previous immunosuppression regimen in 29 patients (60.4%). The mean time from the transplant date to the diagnosis of CAMR was 1385 days in the Belatacept group and 914 days for the non-Belatacept group (P = 0.15). The mean GFR comparison at each time point between the groups did not show a significant difference, and Belatacept did not show superiority compared to the standard immunosuppression regimen in terms of kidney function preservation. 1 (5.2%) patient from the Belatacept group and 1 (3.4%) patient from the non-Belatacept group had a biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) after CAMR confirmation, and it was comparable (P = 0.76). De novo synthesis of the DSA rate was 12.5% in the Belatacept group and 15% In the non-Belatacept group, which was comparable. (P = 0.90). The patient survival rate was 100% in both groups. ConclusionsWe conclude that compared to the standard Tacrolimus/MMF/Prednisone regimen, Belatacept did not significantly benefit in preserving the GFR in long-term follow-ups and stabilizing the DSA production, which is one of the main factors resulting in chronic graft failure.