Safe immunosuppression. New tool for personalized immunosuppressant treatment in renal transplantation. A case report

Safe immunosuppression. New tool for personalized immunosuppressant treatment in renal transplantation. A case report

Background: The adjustment of immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation (KT) to avoid graft rejection remains an important challenge for clinicians. It is difficult to achieve a good balance between under-immunosuppression (with an increased risk of graft rejection) and over-immunosuppression (with an increased risk of side effects) by only relying on the available information about immunosuppressive drugs (IMS).

Immunobiogram® (IMBG) is a novel in vitro diagnostic test that provides clinicians with information about the patient’s sensitivity to individual IMS.

Objective: To present a case report of a patient with renal transplant in the maintenance phase who presented several complications probably related to the immunosuppression during the follow-up, where the use of IMBG as complementary information helped clinicians to guide the therapeutical decision. 

Methods: IMBG is a first-in-class in vitro immunoassay that involves the culture of the patient peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in a semi-solid 3D matrix, then submitted to immune stimulation. It reveals the capacity of an IMS over a gradient to inhibit the activation of immune cells. The read-out allows the building of a dose-response curve per IMS tested, which is mathematically analyzed by a software using the key curve parameters and finally to be translated into a sensitivity map to IMS.

Findings: We present a case report of a 72-year-old patient with a cadaveric donor kidney transplant receiving standard immunosuppressive treatment with mycophenolate, tacrolimus, and corticosteroids. The patient presented several episodes of infections during the follow-up (SARS-CoV2, Cytomegalovirus, spondylodisquitis by Staphylococcus aureus, and emphysematous cystitis) which were managed with different treatment adjustments such as de-escalation of mycophenolate and switching to mTOR. The information provided by the IMBG showed a lack of sensitivity to mTOR which allowed to confirm the final adjustment to a treatment with tacrolimus and corticosteroids, remaining the patient stable since then. 

Discussion: Despite various adjustments to the immunosuppressive therapy during the follow-up, the patient continued experiencing adverse effects that could be related to an over-immunosuppression state. The IMBG provided pharmacodynamic information that complemented the clinical and pharmacokinetic data available, facilitating the individualization of the treatment. 

Conclusion: The case highlights the potential of the IMBG as a complementary clinical tool for personalized treatment of kidney transplant patient management.

Keywords:

Published on: Jun 24, 2024 Pages: 5-8

Full Text PDF Full Text HTML DOI: 10.17352/2640-7973.000023
CrossMark Publons Harvard Library HOLLIS Search IT Semantic Scholar Get Citation Base Search Scilit OAI-PMH ResearchGate Academic Microsoft GrowKudos Universite de Paris UW Libraries SJSU King Library SJSU King Library NUS Library McGill DET KGL BIBLiOTEK JCU Discovery Universidad De Lima WorldCat VU on WorldCat