Hubbry Logo
Transplant rejectionTransplant rejectionMain
Open search
Transplant rejection
Community hub
Transplant rejection
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Transplant rejection
Transplant rejection
Transplant rejection
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Transplant rejection
Micrograph showing lung transplant rejection. Lung biopsy. H&E stain.
SpecialtyImmunology
TreatmentImmunosuppressive drugs

Transplant rejection occurs when transplanted tissue is rejected by the recipient's immune system, which destroys the transplanted tissue. Transplant rejection can be lessened by determining the molecular similitude between donor and recipient and by use of immunosuppressant drugs after transplant.[1]

Types

[edit]

Transplant rejection can be classified into three types: hyperacute, acute, and chronic.[2] These types are differentiated by how quickly the recipient's immune system is activated and the specific aspect or aspects of immunity involved.[3]

Hyperacute rejection

[edit]

Hyperacute rejection is a form of rejection that manifests itself in the minutes to hours following transplantation.[4] It is caused by the presence of pre-existing antibodies in the recipient that recognize antigens in the donor organ.[5] These antigens are located on the endothelial lining of blood vessels within the transplanted organ and, once antibodies bind, will lead to the rapid activation of the complement system.[6] Irreversible damage via thrombosis and subsequent graft necrosis is to be expected.[7] Tissue left implanted will fail to work and could lead to high fever and malaise as the immune system acts against foreign tissue.[8]

Main article: ABO-incompatible transplantation

Graft failure secondary to hyperacute rejection has significantly decreased in incidence as a result of improved pre-transplant screening for antibodies to donor tissues.[4] While these preformed antibodies may result from prior transplants, prior blood transfusions, or pregnancy, hyperacute rejection is most commonly from antibodies to ABO blood group antigens.[6] Consequently, transplants between individuals with differing ABO blood types is generally avoided though may be pursued in very young children (generally under 12 months, but often as old as 24 months)[9] who do not have fully developed immune systems.[10] Shortages of organs and the morbidity and mortality associated with being on transplant waitlists has also increased interest in ABO-incompatible transplantation in older children and adults.[11]

Acute rejection

[edit]
Main article: Histocompatibility

Acute rejection is a category of rejection that occurs on the timescale of weeks to months, with most episodes occurring within the first 3 months to 1 year after transplantation.[6][8] Unlike hyperacute rejection, acute rejection is thought to arise from two distinct immunological mechanisms as lymphocytes, a subset of white blood cells, begin to recognize antigens on transplanted organ/graft.[12] This recognition occurs due to the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), which are proteins on cell surface that are presented to the T-cell receptor found on T-cells.[13] In humans, this is known as the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system[13] and over 17,000 HLA alleles or genetic variants have been described such that it is extremely uncommon for any two people to have identical alleles.[14] Other non-HLA proteins, known as minor histocompatibility antigens, do exist but generally are unable to cause acute rejection in and of themselves unless a multitude of non-HLA proteins are mismatched.[15] As such, HLA matching (in addition to matching ABO groups) is critical in preventing acute rejection.[16]

This process of recognition by T-cells can happen directly or indirectly and lead to acute cellular and acute humoral rejection respectively.[6] Direct allorecognition is a phenomenon within transplant immunology where the dendritic cells, which are the body's antigen-presenting cells (APCs), migrate from donor tissue to lymphoid tissue (lymphoid follicles and lymph nodes) in the recipient and present their MHC peptides to recipient lymphocytes.[17] In comparison, indirect allorecognition is more analogous to how foreign antigens are recognized by the immune system.[18] Dendritic cells of the recipient come across peptides from donor tissue whether in circulation, lymphoid tissue, or in donor tissue itself.[18] Since not the result of direct antigen presentation, these may not necessarily be intact MHC molecules but instead other proteins that are deemed different enough from recipient may engender a response.[18] This process leads to the priming of T-cells to respond to the peptides secondarily going forward.[2] A third semi-direct pathway has been described in which recipient APCs present fully intact donor MHCs,[17] yet its relative contribution to acute rejection is not as well understood.[15]

Acute cellular rejection occurs following direct allorecognition of mismatched donor MHC by cytotoxic T-cells that begin to secrete cytokines to recruit more lymphocytes as well as cause apoptosis or cell death directly.[4][6] The greater the difference in MHC between donor and recipient, the more cytotoxic T-cells are recruited to damage the graft,[6] which may be seen via biopsy in solid organ transplants, with increased lymphocyte infiltration indicative of more severe acute cellular rejection.[15] Acute humoral rejection is a process usually initiated by indirect allorecognition arising from recipient helper T-cells.[6] These helper T-cells have a crucial role in the development of B-cells that can create donor-specific antibodies.[4] The antibodies deposit themselves within the donor graft and lead to activation of the complement cascade alongside antibody-mediated cytotoxicity with neutrophils, a type of white blood cell separate from lymphocytes, predominantly infiltrating into tissues.[6]

Barring genetically identical twins, acute rejection is to be expected to some degree.[16] Rates of clinically significant acute rejection that could endanger transplant have decreased significantly with the development of immunosuppressive regimens. Using kidney transplants as an example, rates of acute rejection have declined from >50% in the 1970s to 10-20%.[19] Singular episodes of acute rejection, when promptly treated, should not compromise transplant; however, repeated episodes may lead to chronic rejection.[16]

Chronic rejection

[edit]
Micrograph showing a glomerulus with changes characteristic of a transplant glomerulopathy. Transplant glomerulopathy is considered a form of chronic antibody-mediated rejection. PAS stain.

Chronic rejection is an insidious form of rejection that leads to graft destruction over months to years after tissue transplantation.[12] The mechanism for chronic rejection is yet to be fully understood, but it is known that prior acute rejection episodes are the main clinical predictor for the development of chronic rejection.[6] In particular, the incidence increases following severe or persistent acute rejection, whereas acute rejection episodes with return to function back to baseline do not have major effects on graft survival.[20][21] Chronic rejection is generally thought of as being related to either vascular damage or parenchymal damage with subsequent fibrosis.[22] While it is unknown the exact contribution of the immune system in these processes, the indirect pathway of allorecognition and the associated antibody formation seems to be especially involved.[6]

Chronic rejection has widely varied effects on different organs. At 5 years post-transplant, 80% of lung transplants, 60% of heart transplants and 50% of kidney transplants are affected, while liver transplants are only affected 10% of the time.[20] Therefore, chronic rejection explains long-term morbidity in most lung-transplant recipients,[23][24] the median survival roughly 4.7 years, about half the span versus other major organ transplants.[25] Airflow obstruction not ascribable to other cause is labeled bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), confirmed by a persistent drop—three or more weeks—in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) by at least 20%.[26] First noted is infiltration by lymphocytes, followed by epithelial cell injury, then inflammatory lesions and recruitment of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, which proliferate and secrete proteins forming scar tissue.[27] A similar phenomenon can be seen with liver transplant wherein fibrosis leads to jaundice secondary to the destruction of bile ducts within the liver, also known as vanishing bile duct syndrome.[28]

Rejection due to non-adherence

[edit]

One principal reason for transplant rejection is non-adherence to prescribed immunosuppressant regimens. This is particularly the case with adolescent recipients,[29] with non-adherence rates near 50% in some instances.[29]

A pilot study conducted by Michael O. Killian PhD from Florida State University and Dr. Dipankar Gupta from University of Florida published in April 2022 in Pediatric Transplantation [30] studied the acceptability and feasibility of an asynchronous directly observed therapy mobile health application among adolescent heart transplant recipients. Patients in the study utilized emocha Health's digital medication adherence program which included asynchronous video messages and chat messages exchanged with a care team. Patients completing the study achieved a 90.1% adherence rate. The researchers noted that further randomized trials are required to confirm the initial findings. However, the results were very promising considering few options exist to support pediatric patients in taking their medications.[citation needed]

Rejection detection

[edit]

Diagnosis of acute rejection relies on clinical data—patient signs and symptoms but also calls on laboratory data such as blood or even tissue biopsy. The laboratory pathologist generally seeks three main histological signs: (1) infiltrating T cells, perhaps accompanied by infiltrating eosinophils, plasma cells, and neutrophils, particularly in telltale ratios, (2) structural compromise of tissue anatomy, varying by tissue type transplanted, and (3) injury to blood vessels. Tissue biopsy is restricted, however, by sampling limitations and risks/complications of the invasive procedure.[31][32][33] Cellular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of immune cells radiolabeled in vivo might—similarly to Gene Expression Profiling (GEP)—offer noninvasive testing.[34][35]

Rejection treatment

[edit]

Hyperacute rejection manifests severely and within minutes, and so treatment is immediate: removal of the tissue. Acute rejection is treated with one or several of a few strategies. Despite treatment, rejection remains a major cause of transplant failure.[36] Chronic rejection is generally considered irreversible and poorly amenable to treatment—only retransplant generally indicated if feasible—though inhaled ciclosporin is being investigated to delay or prevent chronic rejection of lung transplants.

Immunosuppressive therapy

[edit]

A short course of high-dose corticosteroids can be applied, and repeated. Triple therapy adds a calcineurin inhibitor and an anti-proliferative agent. Where calcineurin inhibitors or steroids are contraindicated, mTOR inhibitors are used.

Immunosuppressive drugs:

Antibody-based treatments

[edit]

Antibody specific to select immune components can be added to immunosuppressive therapy. The monoclonal anti-T cell antibody OKT3, once used to prevent rejection, and still occasionally used to treat severe acute rejection, has fallen into disfavor, as it commonly brings severe cytokine release syndrome and late post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. (OKT3 is available in the United Kingdom for named-patient use only.)

Antibody drugs:

Blood transfer

[edit]

Cases refractory to immunosuppressive or antibody therapy are sometimes treated with photopheresis, or extracorporeal photoimmune therapy (ECP), to remove antibody molecules specific to the transplanted tissue.

Marrow transplant

[edit]

Bone marrow transplant can replace the transplant recipient's immune system with the donor's, and the recipient accepts the new organ without rejection. The marrow's hematopoietic stem cells—the reservoir of stem cells replenishing exhausted blood cells including white blood cells forming the immune system—must be of the individual who donated the organ or of an identical twin or a clone. There is a risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), however, whereby mature lymphocytes entering with marrow recognize the new host tissues as foreign and destroy them.

Gene therapy

[edit]

Gene therapy is another method that can be used. In this method, the genes that cause the body to reject transplants would be deactivated. Research is still being conducted, and no gene therapies are being used to date to treat patients.[37][38][39] Current research tends to focus[citation needed] on Th1 and Th17 which mediate allograft rejection via the CD4 and CD8 T cells.[40]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Transplant rejection

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Transplant rejection is a process in which the recipient's immune system identifies a transplanted organ or tissue as foreign and mounts an adaptive immune response against it, primarily due to mismatched alloantigens such as human leukocyte antigens (HLA), leading to inflammation, tissue damage, and potential graft failure. Globally, more than 170,000 solid organ transplants are performed each year as of 2023, but rejection continues to pose a major challenge, with acute rejection affecting 10–30% of recipients in the first year depending on the organ type, and chronic rejection accounting for most long-term graft losses. Rejection is classified into three main types based on timing and mechanisms: hyperacute rejection, which occurs within minutes to hours after transplantation due to pre-existing antibodies against donor antigens (e.g., ABO blood group incompatibilities), activating complement and causing rapid and that necessitates immediate graft removal; acute rejection, which typically develops days to weeks or months post-transplant and involves both T-cell-mediated (via + and + T cells recognizing allogeneic MHC molecules) and antibody-mediated responses, leading to cellular infiltration and vascular injury; and chronic rejection, which progresses over months to years, characterized by gradual , vascular occlusion, and driven by ongoing alloimmune responses and non-immune factors like ischemia. The is triggered by direct allorecognition, where recipient T cells directly recognize donor MHC molecules on graft cells, and indirect allorecognition, where donor are processed and presented by recipient antigen-presenting cells, amplifying the attack through release (e.g., IL-2, interferon-gamma) and cytotoxic activity. Prevention relies on pre-transplant strategies such as HLA and ABO compatibility matching to minimize antigen mismatch, along with lifelong immunosuppressive using drugs like inhibitors (e.g., ), corticosteroids, and antiproliferative agents (e.g., mycophenolate) to suppress T-cell activation and production, though these increase risks of and . Despite advances, rejection remains a leading cause of long-term graft loss, particularly in chronic forms, underscoring the need for ongoing monitoring via biopsies and assessment.

Introduction

Definition and Overview

Transplant rejection is a process in which the recipient's immune system recognizes the transplanted organ or tissue as foreign and mounts an attack, leading to inflammation and potential destruction of the graft. This response primarily involves the adaptive immune system, where T cells and B cells target allogeneic antigens on the donor tissue, distinguishing it from the recipient's own cells. Allograft rejection specifically refers to tissue injury in a transplanted organ from a genetically non-identical donor, driven by effector mechanisms of the alloimmune response. The recognition of transplant rejection dates back to early experiments with skin grafts in the early 1900s, where surgeons observed that grafts between non-identical individuals failed due to immune-mediated destruction, as documented in animal and human studies by . A pivotal milestone occurred in 1954, when the first successful kidney transplant between identical twins in avoided rejection entirely due to their genetic match, highlighting the immunological basis of graft failure. This achievement, performed by Joseph Murray, marked the beginning of modern and underscored the need to address immune incompatibility. At its core, the rejection process involves T-cell activation upon recognition of foreign (MHC) molecules, leading to release, direct , and recruitment of other immune cells that damage the graft's vasculature and . B cells contribute by producing donor-specific antibodies that activate the , exacerbating vascular injury through endothelial damage and . Innate immune components, such as macrophages and natural killer cells, also play supportive roles in amplifying the response. Unlike other causes of graft failure, such as ischemic injury from poor during or toxic damage from nephrotoxic drugs, rejection is distinctly an immune-driven process that can be mitigated but not eliminated without . This immunological specificity differentiates it from non-immune technical or procedural complications that may lead to early graft dysfunction.

Epidemiology and Clinical Impact

Transplant rejection remains a significant challenge in solid organ transplantation, with acute rejection episodes occurring in varying frequencies depending on the organ type. In the United States, according to the 2023 OPTN/SRTR Annual Data Report (covering transplants performed in 2022), the incidence of acute rejection within the first year post-transplant for kidney recipients was approximately 8.0% among adults aged 18-34 years, decreasing to 5.1% in those aged 65 years or older. For heart transplants performed in 2020 (as reported in the 2021 OPTN/SRTR Annual Data Report), the first-year acute rejection rate was around 31.8% in young adults aged 18-34 years, though rates have shown a gradual decline over the past decade. Lung transplant recipients experienced a first-year acute rejection incidence of 16.3% in the 18-34 age group (2023 OPTN/SRTR report), while liver transplants exhibited lower rates, at about 19.1% for similar young adults (2022 OPTN/SRTR report), attributed in part to the liver's relative immune privilege. Globally, patterns are similar, with kidney transplants showing the lowest acute rejection rates among solid organs, though data from the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation indicate that rejection contributes to substantial graft attrition across all organ types. Long-term outcomes are heavily influenced by chronic rejection, which accounts for up to 50% of graft losses beyond the first year in kidney transplants and similarly impacts other organs. One-year graft survival rates exceed 95% for kidney transplants and approach 90% for liver transplants in the US, but these decline markedly over time, with 10-year kidney graft survival around 50-60% and liver graft survival at 60-70%. Heart and lung transplants face higher early rejection risks, leading to 5-year graft survival rates of approximately 75-80% and 55-60%, respectively, with chronic allograft vasculopathy and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome as key contributors to late failures. These trends underscore rejection's role in limiting the durability of transplants, necessitating ongoing immunosuppression and monitoring. Demographic factors exacerbate rejection risks and outcomes. Adolescents and young adults, particularly in the 12-17 age group, experience elevated acute rejection rates—up to 18.8% for heart transplants and 25-30% overall—largely due to non-adherence to immunosuppressive regimens, with non-adherence prevalence reaching 30-70% in pediatric populations. Racial and ethnic minorities face disparities, including lower access to transplantation; patients, who comprise about 35% of end-stage renal cases, receive about 23% of transplants and experience 42% higher graft loss rates compared to recipients. These inequities, partly addressed by the 2021 policy eliminating race-based adjustments in estimated (eGFR) calculations to improve access for patients, contribute to worse overall survival and higher re-transplantation needs in underserved groups. The clinical and societal impact of transplant rejection is profound, driving substantial economic costs and diminishing . In the , graft due to rejection imposes an average additional medical cost of $78,000 per in the year following , with cumulative burdens for affected cohorts exceeding $698 million annually when factoring in dialysis and re-transplantation. Rejection episodes reduce through increased hospitalization, medication burdens, and , while necessitating re-transplants that strain donor organ supplies—over 105,000 patients await organs as of 2025. Overall, these factors amplify healthcare expenditures, estimated at over $10 billion yearly for transplant-related care, including rejection management across all solid organs.

Pathophysiology

Immune Mechanisms

Transplant rejection primarily arises from the recipient's immune system recognizing the graft as foreign, triggering both innate and adaptive responses that culminate in graft damage. The adaptive immune system, involving T and B lymphocytes, mounts a specific attack against donor antigens, while the innate immune system provides rapid amplification through pattern recognition and cytokine release. This coordinated response leads to infiltration, inflammation, and progressive tissue injury in the allograft. Cellular immunity plays a central role in rejection through T-cell mediated responses via two main allorecognition pathways. In direct allorecognition, recipient T cells recognize intact donor major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules presented by donor antigen-presenting cells (APCs), leading to robust activation and acute graft infiltration. In the indirect pathway, recipient APCs process and present donor antigens as peptides on recipient MHC molecules, eliciting a more sustained response associated with chronic damage. CD4+ helper T cells, upon activation, differentiate into Th1 or Th17 subtypes, secreting cytokines such as interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and interleukin-17 (IL-17) to recruit inflammatory cells and promote B-cell antibody production. CD8+ cytotoxic T cells directly infiltrate the graft, inducing apoptosis in donor cells through perforin/granzyme B release or Fas/Fas ligand interactions, resulting in parenchymal destruction. Memory T cells further accelerate this process by rapidly proliferating and exerting enhanced cytotoxicity. Humoral immunity contributes via B-cell production of donor-specific antibodies (DSA), primarily immunoglobulin G targeting donor MHC or minor antigens. These DSA bind to graft endothelium, activating the classical complement pathway and depositing components like C4d, which marks antibody-mediated injury. Complement activation generates the membrane attack complex (C5b-9), causing endothelial cell lysis, opsonization, and . CD4+ T cells provide essential help to B cells through CD40/CD154 interactions, sustaining DSA production and amplifying humoral rejection. Innate immune cells amplify these adaptive responses and initiate early inflammation. Natural killer (NK) cells recognize mismatched donor MHC via killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) or ligands, producing IFN-γ and inducing in graft cells, often enhanced by DSA-mediated antibody-dependent cytotoxicity. Macrophages, particularly the pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype, infiltrate the graft and release interleukin-12 (IL-12) to promote Th17 differentiation, alongside cytokines like tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) that drive . Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) from ischemia-reperfusion injury activate toll-like receptors (TLRs) on innate cells, triggering and MAPK pathways to release pro-inflammatory mediators such as IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α. The inflammatory cascade begins with endothelial , where cytokines (e.g., IFN-γ, TNF-α) and DSA induce chemokine production (e.g., ) and adhesion molecule expression, facilitating leukocyte recruitment and . This progresses to via complement-mediated platelet and fibrin deposition, occluding graft vessels. Chronic inflammation from persistent innate and adaptive signals promotes through transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) by macrophages and myofibroblasts, leading to accumulation and graft sclerosis.

Antigen Recognition and HLA Role

Transplant rejection is primarily initiated by the recipient's recognizing foreign antigens on the donor graft, with the (HLA) system playing a central role. The HLA system encodes (MHC) class I and class II molecules, which are highly polymorphic glycoproteins expressed on cell surfaces. molecules (HLA-A, -B, -C) present intracellular peptides to + T cells, while molecules (HLA-DR, -DQ, -DP) present extracellular peptides to + T cells. These polymorphisms, arising from over 42,000 known HLA alleles (as of September 2025), lead to alloreactivity, where recipient T cells recognize donor MHC as foreign; approximately 1-10% of the recipient's T cell repertoire is alloreactive against a random donor due to mismatches. Antigen presentation in transplantation occurs via two main pathways: direct and indirect allorecognition. In the direct pathway, recipient T cells recognize intact donor MHC-peptide complexes on donor antigen-presenting cells (APCs), such as dendritic cells, leading to rapid activation; this pathway is fast and potent, with 1-5% of naïve T cells being alloreactive, and is primarily associated with hyperacute and acute rejection. In contrast, the indirect pathway involves recipient APCs processing donor antigens into peptides, presenting them via self-MHC to recipient T cells, resulting in a slower, more sustained response that contributes to chronic rejection through helper T-cell mediated inflammation and antibody production. Beyond HLA, minor histocompatibility antigens—non-HLA polymorphic proteins like those derived from endothelial cells (e.g., angiotensin II type 1 receptor [AT1R] and endothelin type A receptor [ETAR])—can elicit immune responses, particularly in chronic rejection. These antigens, expressed on graft endothelium, become targets after initial injury exposes cryptic epitopes, promoting antibody-mediated vascular damage and fibrosis; for instance, anti-AT1R antibodies are detected in up to 59% of patients with chronic allograft nephropathy and correlate with graft loss. Similarly, antibodies against MHC class I-related chain A (MICA) antigens, which are stress-inducible non-HLA molecules on epithelial and endothelial cells, increase the risk of kidney graft loss, with 11.4% prevalence pre-transplant and reduced 1-year survival (88.3% vs. 93.0%) in affected recipients. Cross-reactivity with non-HLA antigens, such as ABO blood group carbohydrates expressed on vascular , can trigger hyperacute rejection in incompatible transplants. Preformed anti-ABO antibodies bind donor antigens, activating complement and causing immediate and within minutes to hours; this is why ABO matching is mandatory, as incompatibility leads to rapid graft failure in organs like kidneys and hearts.

Types

Hyperacute Rejection

Hyperacute rejection represents the most immediate and severe form of allograft rejection, manifesting within minutes to hours after vascular reperfusion of the transplanted organ. This process is driven by pre-existing, or pre-formed, antibodies in the recipient's circulation that recognize antigens on the donor graft's endothelial cells. Primarily, these include anti-ABO blood group antibodies or anti-HLA antibodies, which bind rapidly to the graft endothelium, typically within 5 to 60 minutes of blood flow restoration. This antibody binding triggers a type II hypersensitivity reaction, activating the complement cascade and recruiting inflammatory mediators to the site. The pathological hallmarks of hyperacute rejection involve profound vascular injury and tissue destruction. Endothelial activation leads to platelet aggregation and fibrin deposition, resulting in widespread microvascular that obstructs blood flow. margination and infiltration occur early, exacerbating endothelial damage through release of and proteases, while ischemia rapidly progresses to cortical and of the graft . These changes are evident within the first hour and become irreversible by 12 to 24 hours post-transplant, often presenting clinically as a mottled, cyanotic organ appearance during . In contemporary transplantation practice, hyperacute rejection is exceedingly rare, with an incidence of less than 0.1% in kidney allografts due to rigorous pre-transplant screening, including ABO matching and crossmatch assays for donor-specific antibodies. Similar low rates apply to other solid organ transplants, such as heart and liver, where modern protocols have virtually eliminated unmatched procedures that historically accounted for higher occurrences. When it does occur, outcomes are uniformly poor, with immediate graft non-viability necessitating emergent explantation to prevent complications like systemic inflammation or hemorrhage; no therapeutic interventions effectively reverse the process.

Acute Rejection

Acute rejection is a subacute that occurs following , characterized by an inflammatory attack on the graft primarily mediated by the recipient's . It typically manifests as a sudden deterioration in graft function, often detected through rising serum creatinine levels in kidney transplants or other organ-specific markers, and is distinguished from immediate hyperacute processes by its delayed onset and potential for reversal. This form of rejection involves both cellular and humoral components, leading to tissue that can be halted with timely intervention to preserve graft viability. The timeline for acute rejection generally spans from 1 week to 6 months post-transplantation, with most episodes occurring within the first few weeks to months after the procedure. It is categorized into two main subtypes: T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR), driven by direct cytotoxic T-cell activation against donor antigens, and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), involving donor-specific antibodies (DSA) that target vascular . TCMR features prominent lymphocytic infiltration in the graft , tubulitis ( of tubular by lymphocytes, particularly in renal allografts), and endothelialitis (subendothelial accumulation of mononuclear cells in vessels). In contrast, ABMR is marked by DSA detection in serum, along with histological signs such as peritubular capillaritis and endothelial swelling, often without dominant cellular infiltrates. The incidence of acute rejection varies by organ but typically ranges from 10% to 30% within the first year post-transplant, with higher rates observed in liver and recipients compared to . Episodes are often reversible with prompt and intensified , such as pulse therapy or antibody-depleting agents, restoring graft function in the majority of cases if addressed early. Severity is graded using the Banff classification system, primarily for renal allografts but influential across transplant types, which scores TCMR based on interstitial (i-score), tubulitis (t-score), and vascular involvement (v-score) into grades IA (mild), IB (moderate tubulitis), IIA (mild vascular), IIB (severe vascular), and III (transmural or fibrinoid ); ABMR is similarly stratified by acute/active versus chronic active features, guiding prognostic assessment and management intensity.

Chronic Rejection

Chronic rejection represents a gradual process of long-term graft dysfunction in solid organ transplantation, typically emerging more than six months to several years post-transplant and characterized by progressive and vasculopathy. This form of rejection contrasts with more immediate types by its insidious onset, often driven by cumulative immune and non-immune insults that lead to irreversible structural changes in the graft. A hallmark pathological feature is transplant arteriosclerosis, involving diffuse intimal thickening and of arterial walls, which impairs vascular function and contributes to organ ischemia. The underlying mechanisms involve persistent low-level alloreactivity, where donor-specific antibodies (DSA) play a central role in chronic active antibody-mediated rejection by targeting endothelial cells and promoting inflammation. T-cell mediated processes also contribute through ongoing tubulitis and arteriopathy in affected tissues. Non-immune factors, such as and , amplify these effects by exacerbating vascular damage and independent of direct . Patient non-adherence to immunosuppressive regimens can further perpetuate this low-grade immune activation. Clinically, chronic rejection often remains silent until advanced stages, with nonspecific symptoms like progressive or emerging late, alongside key histopathological findings such as interstitial and tubular atrophy (IF/TA) in renal grafts or myocardial in cardiac transplants. These changes reflect a fibroproliferative response that replaces functional tissue, making early detection challenging without routine surveillance. As the primary cause of late graft failure, chronic rejection accounts for 30-50% of losses at 10 years post-transplant across solid organs, with its fibrotic nature rendering it particularly difficult to reverse compared to earlier rejection episodes. In , for instance, subclinical chronic changes are observed in up to 25% of biopsies by one year, escalating over time. This high long-term impact underscores the need for ongoing monitoring to mitigate progression.

Risk Factors

Immunological Incompatibilities

Immunological incompatibilities in transplantation primarily arise from discrepancies between donor and recipient antigens, which trigger robust immune responses leading to graft rejection. The most critical factor is human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatching, where the degree of disparity between donor and recipient HLA alleles directly correlates with the risk of acute rejection and long-term graft failure. In kidney transplantation, for instance, each additional HLA mismatch increases the hazard ratio for allograft failure by 7-14%, with a significant linear relationship observed across mismatch levels, even in the era of modern immunosuppression. Specifically, zero HLA-DR mismatches are associated with substantially lower rates of acute rejection compared to one or two mismatches, where the odds of rejection increase by up to 1.7 times. Sensitization to HLA antigens, characterized by pre-formed donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), heightens the risk of antibody-mediated rejection and is a major barrier to successful transplantation. This condition often develops from prior exposures such as blood transfusions, pregnancies, or previous transplants, which can elevate calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) levels, with post-transplant de novo or rebound DSA occurring in sensitized patients at rates up to 20-30%, increasing the risk of antibody-mediated rejection. Highly sensitized individuals face prolonged waiting times and reduced access to compatible donors, with sensitization from pregnancy or transfusions independently raising the hazard of graft loss by up to 23%. ABO blood group incompatibility represents another key immunological barrier, particularly restricting living donor kidney transplantation options to approximately 30-35% of potential pairs due to the presence of pre-existing isohemagglutinins. While desensitization protocols involving , rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin enable ABO-incompatible transplants with graft survival rates comparable to ABO-compatible ones (over 90% at one year), these approaches carry elevated risks of infection, bleeding, and antibody-mediated rejection, necessitating intensive monitoring. Beyond antigens, mismatches in minor histocompatibility antigens (mHAs)—peptides derived from polymorphic genes presented by HLA molecules—contribute to chronic rejection, particularly chronic allograft vasculopathy in solid organ transplants. These antigens elicit T-cell and antibody responses that promote vascular intimal thickening and , with sex-specific mHAs like the Y-chromosome-encoded HY antigen implicated in chronic rejection cases in sex-mismatched grafts. mHA disparities are especially relevant in HLA-identical transplants, where they account for persistent low-level leading to progressive graft deterioration.

Non-Adherence and Behavioral Factors

Medication non-adherence, defined as the failure to take immunosuppressive medications as prescribed, significantly contributes to transplant rejection by allowing unchecked immune responses against the graft. In transplant recipients, non-adherence rates range from 20% to 50%, with the highest incidence observed in this age group due to developmental challenges and transition to care. This behavior is associated with up to a fivefold increase in rejection episodes compared to adherent patients, underscoring its role as a leading preventable cause of graft loss. Lifestyle factors such as and further elevate rejection risk by exacerbating ischemia-reperfusion injury during transplantation. in renal transplant recipients doubles the hazard ratio for rejection and promotes renal through endothelial damage and . Similarly, is linked to higher rates of primary graft dysfunction and death from graft failure, as excess adiposity intensifies and inflammatory responses in the reperfused organ. Additional risk factors include advanced donor age and prolonged ischemia times, which exacerbate microvascular and rejection risk. Socioeconomic barriers, including limited access to monitoring and educational disparities in understanding medication regimens, disproportionately affect adherence and heighten rejection vulnerability. Patients in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods exhibit lower adherence to immunosuppressants post-liver transplantation, driven by financial constraints and reduced healthcare resources. In pediatric populations, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face worse medication adherence and increased waitlist mortality, reflecting systemic inequities in transplant and follow-up care. Psychological factors, particularly depression, are associated with up to a twofold increased risk of graft failure and 65% higher mortality post-transplantation, often through impaired adherence and immune dysregulation. Depression post-transplantation correlates with a 65% higher mortality rate, often mediated through non-adherence to regimens complicated by side effects like fatigue.

Diagnosis

Clinical and Laboratory Assessment

Clinical assessment of transplant rejection begins with monitoring for nonspecific systemic symptoms and organ-specific signs of graft dysfunction. Common symptoms include fever, which may indicate an inflammatory response, and localized graft tenderness or , reflecting immune-mediated to the transplanted tissue. In kidney transplants, for instance, rising serum creatinine levels serve as an early indicator of deteriorating graft function, often accompanied by or reduced urine output. These clinical manifestations typically prompt further evaluation to differentiate rejection from other causes like or drug toxicity. Laboratory tests play a central role in the routine surveillance and diagnosis of rejection. Serial measurements of serum are standard for assessing renal allograft function, with unexplained elevations signaling potential rejection. Donor-specific (DSA) titers, detected via assays like single-antigen bead testing, help identify humoral rejection risks, as rising levels correlate with antibody-mediated damage. Additionally, spikes in donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) levels in the bloodstream, measured through next-generation sequencing, provide a sensitive marker of allograft injury, often preceding functional decline. These tests enable timely intervention before irreversible damage occurs. In high-risk patients, such as those with prior or HLA mismatches, protocol biopsies are performed as part of to detect subclinical rejection before symptoms arise. These scheduled procedures, often at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplant, allow for early histological confirmation and adjustment of . Imaging modalities, particularly , support clinical assessment by evaluating graft and structure. Doppler can reveal increased resistive indices or reduced flow velocities, indicative of vascular compromise during rejection episodes, aiding in the localization of abnormalities without invasive procedures.

Biopsy-Based Confirmation

Biopsy-based confirmation serves as the gold standard for definitively diagnosing transplant rejection, providing histopathological evidence to classify the type and severity of rejection through direct examination of graft tissue. This invasive procedure is typically indicated when clinical suspicion arises from symptoms such as graft dysfunction, often following initial assessments. The standard approach involves percutaneous biopsy, performed under ultrasound or CT guidance to target the graft accurately while minimizing damage to surrounding structures. A core needle, usually 14- to 18-gauge, extracts multiple tissue samples (typically 2-3 cores) from the allograft, with the patient positioned supine for kidney or heart biopsies. Post-procedure, samples are processed for routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining to visualize cellular infiltrates, tubular damage, and vascular changes indicative of rejection. For suspected antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), immunofluorescence staining for C4d complement fragment is essential, as peritubular capillary C4d positivity signals humoral immune activation. Grading systems standardize interpretation across organ types. In kidney transplants, the Banff schema categorizes rejection based on lesion scores for tubulitis, interstitial inflammation, and vascular involvement; for instance, type IA acute T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) is characterized by significant inflammation (i ≥ 2) and moderate tubulitis (t = 2). For heart transplants, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) grading scale assesses lymphocytic infiltrates and myocyte damage, with grade 1R indicating mild rejection characterized by interstitial mononuclear infiltrates. Although generally safe, percutaneous biopsy carries risks including bleeding, which occurs in less than 5% of cases and may require transfusion or intervention in major instances, and , which is infrequent but can be exacerbated by . These complications are typically managed conservatively, with major events reported at around 1-2%. Histopathological analysis distinguishes rejection from mimics such as or disease recurrence by identifying specific patterns: lymphocytic infiltrates and endothelialitis suggest rejection, whereas viral inclusions or recurrent glomerular lesions point to alternative etiologies. This differentiation is crucial for guiding targeted therapies and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

Noninvasive Biomarkers

Noninvasive biomarkers for transplant rejection detection have advanced significantly, enabling earlier identification of allograft injury through blood and urine analyses without the need for invasive procedures. These markers primarily target molecular and proteomic changes indicative of immune-mediated damage, offering real-time monitoring capabilities that complement routine clinical assessments. Key examples include donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) and gene expression profiles, which detect elevations signaling rejection across various organ transplants. Molecular markers such as dd-cfDNA measure the fraction of circulating DNA from the donor graft released due to cellular injury. In kidney transplantation, dd-cfDNA levels exceeding 1% have been established as a threshold for significant allograft injury, including acute and antibody-mediated rejection, with high sensitivity in detecting active damage. For heart transplants, gene expression profiling via the AlloMap test assesses 11 informative genes to stratify rejection risk, demonstrating noninferiority to routine endomyocardial biopsies in stable patients by identifying low-risk profiles with scores below 34. Proteomic approaches, particularly in , leverage urinary like , which is elevated in T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR). Urinary levels, when normalized to , predict TCMR with high negative predictive value, allowing for targeted surveillance in subclinical cases. Post-2020 developments in biomarkers, such as dd-cfDNA, have improved detection of antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) in kidney allografts, with reported sensitivities around 83% for early detection in donor-specific antibody-positive patients. Despite these advances, noninvasive biomarkers do not fully replace for definitive diagnosis, as they lack specificity for rejection and face cost barriers limiting widespread adoption.

Treatment

Immunosuppressive Therapies

Immunosuppressive therapies form the cornerstone of managing transplant rejection by broadly suppressing the recipient's to prevent or reverse allograft attack. These regimens typically combine multiple drug classes to target different stages of T-cell activation and proliferation, achieving synergistic effects while minimizing individual toxicities. Standard protocols include induction therapy immediately post-transplant to provide intense initial immunosuppression, followed by long-term maintenance to sustain graft protection. Calcineurin inhibitors, such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus, are pivotal in most regimens as they inhibit T-cell activation by blocking the calcineurin-mediated dephosphorylation of nuclear factor of activated T-cells (NFAT), thereby preventing interleukin-2 production and subsequent clonal expansion. Cyclosporine, introduced in the early 1980s, revolutionized transplantation by dramatically reducing acute rejection rates from over 50% in earlier eras to around 20-30%, marking a seminal advancement in outcomes. Tacrolimus, a macrolide analog discovered in the 1980s, exhibits greater potency and is now preferred in many protocols due to superior graft survival and lower acute rejection incidence compared to cyclosporine, with meta-analyses showing relative risk reductions of up to 20-30% for rejection episodes. Both drugs are administered orally for maintenance, with dosing guided by therapeutic drug monitoring to maintain trough levels that balance efficacy and toxicity. Antimetabolites like mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) complement calcineurin inhibitors by inhibiting synthesis in lymphocytes, specifically targeting inosine monophosphate to halt and proliferation of T- and B-cells. MMF, approved in the , has demonstrated a 40-50% reduction in acute rejection when added to inhibitor-based regimens in randomized trials, improving one-year graft survival without excessive toxicity. It is typically dosed at 1-2 g daily, adjusted for gastrointestinal side effects or , and serves as the antiproliferative agent in standard maintenance therapy. Corticosteroids, particularly , are used both in and for treating acute rejection episodes through high-dose pulse therapy, which rapidly suppresses and release by inhibiting multiple immune pathways including translocation. For acute rejection, intravenous pulses of 500 mg daily for 3 days, followed by oral taper, reverse approximately 70-80% of cellular rejection cases when initiated early, as evidenced in clinical trials across organ types. In , low-dose (5-10 mg daily) is combined with other agents to provide broad coverage. The predominant maintenance regimen is triple therapy, combining a inhibitor, an such as MMF, and a , which has become the global standard since the 1990s and reduces acute rejection rates to under 15% in the first year post-transplant. Induction often involves higher initial doses or additional agents like basiliximab for high-risk patients, transitioning to this triple backbone for long-term use, with adjustments based on graft function and rejection risk. While effective, these therapies carry significant side effects, including from calcineurin inhibitors due to afferent arteriolar and tubular damage, affecting up to 30-50% of long-term recipients and contributing to chronic allograft nephropathy. Other risks encompass infections, malignancy, and metabolic disturbances like from corticosteroids, necessitating vigilant monitoring and dose minimization strategies.

Antibody and Cellular Interventions

Antibody and cellular interventions represent targeted approaches to manage acute and chronic transplant rejection by specifically modulating humoral or cellular immune responses, often employed when standard immunosuppressive therapies prove insufficient. These therapies focus on depleting or inhibiting key immune effectors, such as T cells or B cells, or removing circulating donor-specific antibodies (DSA), thereby halting rejection processes without broadly suppressing the entire immune system. Monoclonal antibodies have been pivotal in treating steroid-resistant rejection episodes. , a murine targeting the CD3 complex on T cells, was the first approved biologic for reversing acute allograft rejection, particularly in cases unresponsive to corticosteroids. Administered intravenously at 5 mg daily for 10-14 days, it rapidly depletes T cells by inducing and blocking signaling, achieving reversal rates of approximately 85-95% in steroid-resistant renal allograft rejection. However, its use has declined due to immunogenicity and risks, leading to its market withdrawal in 2010. Rituximab, a chimeric against on B cells, targets in antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). It depletes CD20-positive B cells, reducing DSA production and precursors, and is typically dosed at 375 mg/m² weekly for four doses in refractory ABMR cases. Clinical studies demonstrate improved renal function and reduced DSA levels in 60-80% of treated transplant recipients with severe or steroid-resistant rejection, particularly when combined with other therapies. Cellular therapies, such as (ATG), provide polyclonal antibody-mediated T-cell depletion for both induction and treatment of T-cell-mediated rejection. Derived from rabbit or horse serum immunized against human thymocytes, ATG binds multiple T-cell surface antigens (e.g., , CD3, ), leading to complement-dependent , opsonization, and of T cells. In steroid-resistant acute rejection, a 7-14 day course of ATG (1.5 mg/kg/day) reverses rejection in over 80% of cases and improves 1-year graft survival to 84-90% compared to untreated refractory episodes. For ABMR driven by DSA, plasmapheresis combined with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) effectively removes circulating antibodies and modulates immune responses. Plasmapheresis involves 5-7 sessions of plasma exchange to reduce DSA levels by 50-70%, followed by high-dose IVIG (0.5-2 g/kg) to neutralize remaining antibodies and inhibit B-cell activation. This regimen achieves clinical response rates of 68-85% in acute ABMR, with renal function stabilization in most responders and DSA decline in approximately 70% of patients. Overall, these interventions enhance outcomes in rejection, with studies showing 20-50% improvements in graft at 1-3 years compared to supportive care alone in high-risk cases, though long-term efficacy varies by rejection type and timing. For instance, in ABMR treated with /IVIG, 18-month graft reaches 80%, underscoring their role in preserving allograft function when integrated with monitoring for DSA and confirmation.

Experimental and Emerging Treatments

approaches, particularly using -Cas9 to edit (HLA) genes in donor organs or cells, represent a promising strategy to mitigate transplant rejection by reducing . In preclinical models, CRISPR editing of HLA class I and II genes in regulatory T cells (Tregs) has enabled engraftment and function while protecting against allospecific T cell rejection, potentially inducing tolerance without broad . Early-phase clinical trials, such as NCT07053462, are evaluating -Cas9 editing of donor kidneys to disrupt HLA expression, aiming to lower rejection risk in recipients; this phase I study initiated in 2025 builds on prior safety data from 2024 preclinical validations. Similarly, NCT07053488 assesses CRISPR-edited donor livers, focusing on reduced to promote long-term graft survival. These trials underscore the potential of gene editing to create hypoimmunogenic grafts, though challenges like off-target effects and delivery efficiency persist. Biomaterial strategies offer innovative ways to shield transplanted tissues from immune attack, particularly for cell transplants in . Encapsulation techniques involve enclosing islets in semipermeable membranes or hydrogels to prevent direct immune cell contact while allowing nutrient and insulin diffusion, thereby reducing rejection without systemic drugs. Recent advancements include alginate-based microcapsules that have demonstrated sustained islet function in nonhuman for over a year, with minimal fibrotic overgrowth. Complementing this, immunomodulatory nanoparticles remodel the transplant microenvironment to suppress local ; for instance, rapamycin-loaded nanoparticles have prolonged islet graft survival in murine models by inhibiting activation and promoting vascularization. A 2025 study showed that nanoparticle-pretreated sites enabled vascularized islet engraftment with reduced rejection in diabetic mice, achieving normoglycemia for months. These approaches prioritize localized , minimizing systemic side effects compared to traditional therapies. Stem cell and bone marrow transfer protocols aim to establish mixed chimerism, where donor and recipient hematopoietic cells coexist, fostering central and peripheral tolerance to the allograft. Non-myeloablative conditioning followed by donor hematopoietic stem cell infusion has induced durable mixed chimerism in preclinical large animal models, leading to long-term acceptance of kidney and islet transplants without ongoing immunosuppression. In clinical settings, combined bone marrow and kidney transplantation under total lymphoid irradiation and antithymocyte globulin has achieved stable mixed chimerism in HLA-matched recipients, correlating with reduced rejection episodes and improved graft function over five years. Regulatory T cells expanded in chimeric environments further suppress alloreactive responses, as evidenced by increased Treg proportions in tolerant patients. While promising for tolerance induction, these methods require refined conditioning to balance efficacy and toxicity, with ongoing trials exploring donor-specific Treg co-infusion. Recent advances from 2023 to 2025 highlight AI-optimized immunosuppressive regimens to personalize dosing and predict rejection risk, enhancing treatment precision. models analyzing patient have optimized dosing in transplant recipients, reducing variability and acute rejection rates by up to 30% in a 2025 . AI-driven algorithms integrating genomic, , and clinical data predict graft survival and tailor regimens, outperforming traditional methods in analyses of over 10,000 cases. These tools enable real-time adjustments, potentially lowering chronic rejection incidence while minimizing drug toxicity. As of November 2025, additional emerging therapies for antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) and prevention are advancing in clinical trials. Tegoprubart, an anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody, showed positive Phase 2 results in the BESTOW trial for preventing transplant rejection, supporting progression to Phase 3 development as a potential new standard. Other promising agents in trials include felzartamab (anti-CD38), imlifidase (), riliprubart (anti-C1q), and efgartigimod ( antagonist), aimed at targeting B cells, antibodies, and complement pathways to improve outcomes in ABMR. As of early 2026, several active clinical trials are evaluating investigational treatments specifically targeting antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in kidney transplant patients. These include NCT06685757, a Phase 3 recruiting trial sponsored by Biogen assessing felzartamab; NCT06503731, a Phase 2 recruiting trial sponsored by argenx evaluating efgartigimod PH20 SC; NCT06744647, a Phase 2 recruiting trial sponsored by Alexion Pharmaceuticals investigating ALXN2030; and NCT05156710, a Phase 2 trial sponsored by Sanofi assessing BIVV020 (SAR445088), which is active but not recruiting. These trials focus on the treatment or prevention of AMR in kidney transplants and are ongoing.

Prevention

Donor Matching Strategies

Donor matching strategies in transplantation aim to identify compatible donors pre-transplant to reduce the risk of immunological rejection by minimizing antigenic disparities between donor and recipient. These approaches primarily focus on assessing (HLA) compatibility, blood group matching, and pre-formed antibodies, thereby optimizing graft survival rates. By selecting donors with the closest immunological profile, transplant teams can lower the incidence of acute and chronic rejection episodes, particularly in solid organ and transplants. HLA typing is a cornerstone of donor selection, involving molecular techniques such as high-resolution sequencing to determine alleles at key loci including , -B, -C, -DRB1, -DQB1, and -DPB1. This method provides detailed genotyping that exceeds low-resolution serologic testing, enabling precise mismatch assessment and improved prediction of immune responses. In , an ideal 8/8 match at , -B, -C, and -DRB1 loci significantly reduces the risk of and rejection. High-resolution typing has become standard in many programs, correlating with better long-term outcomes in both unrelated and related donor scenarios. ABO blood group compatibility remains essential for most solid organ transplants, as mismatches can trigger hyperacute rejection due to pre-existing isohemagglutinins. For kidneys, livers, and hearts, ABO-identical or compatible pairings are prioritized to avoid endothelial damage and immediate graft loss. In cases of ABO incompatibility, desensitization protocols—such as , immunoadsorption, and rituximab—can reduce titers to safe levels, expanding donor pools without compromising viability. These strategies have enabled successful ABO-incompatible kidney transplants with graft survival rates comparable to compatible ones when titers are adequately managed preoperatively. Crossmatch testing detects recipient sensitization to donor antigens prior to transplantation, serving as a critical safeguard against antibody-mediated rejection. The complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) crossmatch uses donor lymphocytes incubated with recipient serum to identify cytotoxic antibodies via complement activation and cell lysis, providing a functional assay for high-risk incompatibilities. Flow cytometry crossmatch enhances sensitivity by quantifying antibody binding to cell surface antigens using fluorescent markers, detecting low-level donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) that CDC might miss. A negative crossmatch in both assays is typically required for proceeding, though virtual crossmatching via solid-phase assays can expedite matching in urgent cases. Paired exchange programs facilitate transplantation for incompatible donor-recipient pairs by creating chains or cycles where donors swap recipients to achieve better HLA and ABO matches. In kidney paired donation, national registries match pairs through algorithms that prioritize compatibility, often involving multiple participants to maximize successful pairings. These chains, often initiated by altruistic donors, have significantly expanded access to living donor kidney transplants, with programs like the National Kidney Registry facilitating approximately 30% of such transplants in the US as of 2025.

Prophylactic Immunomodulation

Prophylactic in transplant rejection involves the administration of immunosuppressive agents immediately following transplantation to suppress the recipient's and prevent the onset of acute rejection episodes. This approach is a of post-transplant care, typically combining intensive initial with long-term to balance rejection prevention against risks. Standard protocols are tailored to the transplanted organ, risk factors, and immunological compatibility, with the goal of achieving graft survival rates exceeding 90% at in many cases. Induction therapy, administered at the time of transplant, provides high-intensity immunosuppression to mitigate early acute rejection, which is most common in the first few months post-transplant. Common agents include basiliximab, an interleukin-2 receptor antagonist, and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), a polyclonal antibody that depletes T-lymphocytes. Basiliximab is typically given as two intravenous doses on days 0 and 4 post-transplant, reducing the relative risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection by approximately 30% compared to no induction in kidney transplant recipients. ATG, dosed at 1-1.5 mg/kg daily for 3-5 days, offers more profound T-cell depletion and lowers the relative risk of acute rejection by nearly 50% in high-immunological-risk patients when compared to basiliximab. These therapies are selected based on patient risk, with basiliximab preferred for low-risk cases due to its lower infection risk, while ATG is reserved for higher-risk scenarios such as sensitized recipients or retransplants. Overall, induction regimens can reduce early acute rejection incidence by 30-50%, depending on the agent and patient profile. Maintenance immunosuppression follows induction and is administered lifelong to sustain immune tolerance and prevent chronic rejection. Regimens typically involve dual or triple drug combinations, tailored by organ type to optimize efficacy and minimize toxicity. For kidney transplants, the standard triple therapy includes a calcineurin inhibitor (e.g., tacrolimus), an antiproliferative agent (e.g., mycophenolate mofetil), and corticosteroids, which collectively reduce acute rejection rates to under 15% in the first year. Liver transplant protocols often use dual therapy with tacrolimus and mycophenolate, allowing earlier steroid withdrawal to avoid metabolic complications. Heart transplants commonly employ triple therapy with tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and low-dose steroids, achieving rejection-free survival in over 80% of cases at one year. Dosing is individualized, with adjustments for drug interactions and organ function to maintain steady-state immunosuppression. Monitoring protocols ensure therapeutic drug levels while avoiding toxicity, involving regular blood tests and dose adjustments. For tacrolimus, the most widely used calcineurin inhibitor, therapeutic trough levels in kidney transplants range from 8-12 ng/mL in the first month, tapering to 5-8 ng/mL after six months to balance rejection prevention with nephrotoxicity risks. Levels are measured via immunoassay, with adjustments made to keep patients within target ranges 70-80% of the time, as time below range increases rejection risk by up to twofold. Similar monitoring applies to other agents, such as cyclosporine (100-400 ng/mL) or sirolimus, with protocols including weekly checks early post-transplant and monthly thereafter. Side effect management is integral to prophylactic regimens, focusing on preventing opportunistic infections due to . Antiviral prophylaxis targets common pathogens like (CMV) and (HSV), with administered for 3-6 months post-transplant in at-risk recipients (e.g., CMV-seronegative recipients of seropositive donors), reducing CMV disease incidence by over 60%. Acyclovir or valacyclovir provides HSV prophylaxis for 1-3 months, particularly in the early period when doses are high. These measures, combined with antibacterial (e.g., trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for Pneumocystis) and prophylaxis as needed, mitigate rates while preserving the benefits of .

Tolerance Induction Approaches

Tolerance induction approaches in transplantation aim to establish a state of immune of the donor organ without the need for ongoing immunosuppressive therapy, thereby minimizing long-term complications such as infections and malignancies. These strategies leverage mechanisms like central and to delete or suppress alloreactive immune cells, promoting a drug-free coexistence between the recipient's and the graft. Unlike prophylactic , which relies on continuous pharmacological intervention, tolerance induction seeks durable, operational tolerance where graft function is maintained indefinitely post-immunosuppression withdrawal. One prominent method is the induction of mixed chimerism through co-transplantation of donor with the solid organ, allowing engraftment of donor hematopoietic cells into the recipient's . This approach fosters donor-specific tolerance by enabling clonal deletion of alloreactive T cells in the and promoting regulatory mechanisms in the periphery. In clinical trials involving HLA-mismatched transplants, mixed chimerism has been achieved in approximately 50% of recipients, enabling successful withdrawal of maintenance while preserving graft function over extended periods. Regulatory T cells (Tregs), particularly +CD25+FoxP3+ subsets, play a critical role in suppressing alloreactive responses, and their therapeutic infusion has emerged as a key tolerance strategy. expansion of recipient- or donor-derived Tregs, often using interleukin-2 and anti-CD3/ stimulation, generates large numbers of these cells for adoptive transfer to dampen graft rejection. Phase I clinical trials in and transplant recipients have demonstrated the safety of Treg infusions at doses up to 30 × 10^6 cells/kg, with evidence of reduced alloreactivity and prolonged graft survival without significant adverse effects. blockade targets the CD28-B7 pathway to prevent full T-cell activation, offering a more selective compared to broad-spectrum agents. , a that binds and , inhibits T-cell and has been approved for maintenance therapy. In randomized trials, belatacept-based regimens have achieved comparable rejection rates to inhibitors but with superior long-term renal function and potential for tolerance promotion when combined with other interventions, as it spares regulatory pathways while blocking effector responses. Recent clinical trials from 2020 to 2025 have advanced tolerance induction in specialized contexts, including xenotransplantation and liver grafting. In xenotransplant studies, gene editing of porcine organs—such as CRISPR/Cas9 knockout of alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase and insertion of human complement regulators—has enabled prolonged xenograft survival in nonhuman primates and initial human cases, with emerging data suggesting tolerance via reduced innate and adaptive responses when paired with targeted immunosuppression. For liver transplantation, operational tolerance, defined as stable graft function off immunosuppression for at least one year, occurs spontaneously in approximately 20% of recipients, often linked to peripheral Treg expansion and B-cell signatures, informing protocols for broader application.

References

  1. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000815.htm
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27163/
  3. https://www.transplant-observatory.org/
  4. https://www.who.int/news/item/30-05-2024-seventy-seventh-world-health-assembly---daily-update--30-may-2024
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864724/
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535410/
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35091823/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3684003/
  9. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/a-transplant-makes-history/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8682823/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553074/
  12. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135%2825%2900026-7/pdf
  13. https://srtr.transplant.hrsa.gov/ADR/Chapter?name=Heart&year=2021
  14. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135%2825%2900031-0/pdf
  15. https://srtr.transplant.hrsa.gov/ADR/Chapter?name=Liver&year=2022
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549762/
  17. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135%2825%2900028-0/fulltext
  18. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135%2825%2900030-9/fulltext
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12141775/
  20. https://www.aamc.org/news/how-our-organ-transplant-system-fails-people-color
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6019128/
  22. https://unos.org/media-resources/releases/change-addressing-disparity-for-black-kidney-patients-takes-effect/
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32020739/
  24. https://www.healio.com/news/nephrology/20200206/economic-burden-of-kidney-graft-failure-in-the-us-shows-high-impact
  25. https://www.organdonor.gov/learn/organ-donation-statistics
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3808773/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2778785/
  28. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01377-9
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4020392/
  30. https://hla.alleles.org/pages/genes/statistics/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4701596/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9312985/
  33. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa067160
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/hyperacute-graft-rejection
  35. https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/kidneyhyperacuterejection.html
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21645250/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37373823/
  38. https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/transplantation/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7105630/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10299312/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5715482/
  42. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.661643/full
  43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537057/
  44. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/fulltext/2016/05000/the_risk_of_transplant_failure_with_hla_mismatch.25.aspx
  45. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/1107756
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6890204/
  47. https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/31/10/1746/2222607
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7416363/
  49. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/kidney-transplantation-in-adults-abo-incompatible-transplantation
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8957520/
  51. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.117.028533
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3331718/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5739966/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4689929/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10257034/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2773915/
  57. https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/journals/transplant-international/articles/10.3389/ti.2024.11960/full
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415475/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9949889/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10437037/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4840103/
  62. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/429314-overview
  63. https://journals.lww.com/jasn/fulltext/2017/07000/cell_free_dna_and_active_rejection_in_kidney.28.aspx
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12294478/
  65. https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/40/7/1384/7914169
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40722731/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1600613522280332
  68. https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386%2802%2900103-8/fulltext
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8106257/
  70. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/rg.2019190096
  71. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.09.2912
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3036241/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9717654/
  74. https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(18)3140-4/fulltext
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6531025/
  76. https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(20)0895-4/fulltext
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9968362/
  78. https://www.krcp-ksn.org/m/journal/view.php?number=225
  79. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03087-3
  80. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0912965
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4625672/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11345135/
  83. https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538%2824%2900565-9/fulltext
  84. https://www.immunologyresearchjournal.com/articles/immunosuppressive-drugs-in-organ-transplantation-to-prevent-allograft-rejection-mode-of-action-and-side-effects.html
  85. https://www.ajmc.com/view/ace022_jan15_enderby
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10761313/
  87. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa067411
  88. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003961.pub2/
  89. https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-pdf/19/11/2864/5118906/gfh445.pdf
  90. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1463429/full
  91. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/fulltext/1996/03150/mycophenolate_mofetil_for_the_treatment_of.9.aspx
  92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10430978/
  93. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/13/7/1458
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S008525381531588X
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36372141/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3011215/
  97. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK548590/
  98. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18031137/
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16213290/
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147435/
  101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15659147/
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10758678/
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38174145/
  104. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7022879/
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6716220/
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5306998/
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11579234/
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7679996/
  109. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/fulltext/2014/07151/renal_outcomes_after_treatment_with_intensive.1708.aspx
  110. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135%2822%2901663-X/fulltext
  111. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64945-3
  112. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07053462
  113. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07053488
  114. https://kactusbio.com/blogs/gene-editing/panorama-of-crispr-gene-editing-clinical-applications-2024-review
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11744047/
  116. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.923241/full
  117. https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-025-03498-5
  118. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.adj9615
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5669809/
  120. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/citation/2006/07152/stable_mixed_chimerism_and_tolerance_in.315.aspx
  121. https://ashpublications.org/bloodadvances/article-abstract/3/5/734/246729
  122. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.612737/full
  123. https://ai.jmir.org/2025/1/e67302
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11818595/
  125. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3943/6/3/23
  126. https://ir.eledon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/eledon-presents-phase-2-bestow-trial-results-tegoprubart
  127. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antibody-mediated-rejection-market-set-to-expand-significantly-during-the-forecast-period-20252034-amid-advances-in-diagnostics-and-targeted-therapies--delveinsight-302611065.html
  128. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06685757
  129. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06503731
  130. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06744647
  131. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05156710
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9559221/
  133. https://ashpublications.org/ashclinicalnews/news/7168/HLA-Typing-Origins-Innovations-and-Ongoing
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8465511/
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8144637/
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8428642/
  137. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01414.x
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6082363/
  139. https://unos.org/wp-content/uploads/KPD-FAQs_v2.pdf
  140. https://www.kidneyregistry.com/news/national-kidney-registry-facilitates-10000th-living-donor-kidney-transplant/
  141. https://www.myast.org/uploads/files/general/1.-Kidney-Transplantation-2024.pdf
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5215533/
  143. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135%2822%2924805-9/fulltext
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451959620300238
  145. https://www.accp.com/docs/bookstore/psap/p5b11sample03.pdf
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11486932/
  147. https://bmcnephrol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12882-021-02622-5
  148. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prophylaxis-of-infections-in-solid-organ-transplantation
  149. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/fulltext/2025/07000/the_fourth_international_consensus_guidelines_on.6.aspx
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3869282/
  151. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1600613522255221
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5963722/
  153. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25574-7
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3035067/
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8239063/
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6978297/
  157. https://www.kireports.org/article/S2468-0249%2823%2901474-2/fulltext
  158. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/fulltext/2016/11000/costimulation_blockade_in_kidney_transplantation_.17.aspx
  159. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1685682/full
  160. https://nyulangone.org/news/first-gene-edited-pig-kidney-transplant-clinical-trial-begins-nyu-langone-health
  161. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01326/full
  162. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eji.202048875
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.