Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

Progression of Interstitial Fibrosis in Kidney Transplantation

Rainer Oberbauer
CJASN December 2016, 11 (12) 2110-2112; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.09770916
Rainer Oberbauer
Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • transplantation
  • fibrosis
  • renal biopsy
  • Disease Progression
  • kidney
  • kidney transplantation
  • Lung Diseases
  • Interstitial

Tubulointerstitial fibrosis is the terminal consequence of chronic active inflammation of any cause. The pathophysiology is driven by an imbalance between tubular repair mechanisms counteracting injury and endothelial-mesenchymal transition of these cells and resident fibroblasts as well as infiltration of myofibroblasts from the circulation leading to extensive deposition of extracellular matrix (1). TGF-β signaling through the intracellular Smads superfamily is the most prominent mediator of renal fibrosis (2).

In the setting of renal transplantation, the trigger of chronic inflammation is the continuous ongoing cellular and humoral alloimmune response to the graft, which per se leads to inflammation of the tubulointerstitial compartment as well as a progressive narrowing of the graft vasculature. This hypothesis is supported by recent findings in transcriptomics analyses of biopsies, which suggest that graft deterioration is more dependent on continuing nephron injury through humoral alloimmunity than fibrogenesis (3,4). This view is further reinforced by biopsy findings of patients who have attained a state of immunologic allograft tolerance, where even long after transplantation, no inflammation, tubulointerstitial fibrosis, and arteriolar hyalinosis can be detected (5,6).

Hypoperfusion and consequent hypoxia of the grafts of patients on maintenance immunosuppression have also been shown to trigger endothelial-mesenchymal transition of tubule cells, specifically in regions with physiologically low oxygen tension, such as the renal medulla (7). On top of these alloimmune-mediated processes, calcineurin inhibitor toxicity and preexisting arterial hypertension, which may be aggravated by the immunosuppressive regimen, are the main drivers of fibrosis. These processes and quantification of humoral immunity and fibrosis have been described and rated in the Banff renal allograft pathology consensus reports and original papers (8).

The time course and evolution of the initiation and progression of interstitial fibrosis and its relation to deteriorating excretory graft function have nicely been shown by Nankivell et al. (9). In a recent update of an extended follow-up, the same investigators showed that tacrolimus as the current standard calcineurin inhibitor therapy prevents the development of early inflammation and fibrosis as well as acute arteriolopathy better than cyclosporin. After the first year, however, the rate of progression of these pathologic features remains the same in cyclosporin- and tacrolimus-treated patients (10), which also fits the findings of Stegall et al. (11), who did not find differences in the progression of Banff chronic changes in the interstitium (ci) scores between years 1 and 5 in tacrolimus- compared with sirolimus-treated patients.

So far, it remains speculative whether treatment of early inflammation will, in fact, lead to less fibrosis and less development of de novo donor–specific anti–HLA antibodies (dnDSAs) and chronic antibody–mediated rejection. Rush et al. (12) found in their earlier studies that treatment of initial subclinical cell–mediated rejection with steroids might be beneficial for the preservation of eGFR as a proxy for fibrosis and long-term outcomes. However, a subsequent study with a more contemporary immunosuppressive regimen found only a 5% rate of subclinical cellular rejection in protocol biopsies obtained within the first 6 months (13). García-Carro et al. (14) analyzed sequential surveillance biopsies obtained at 6 weeks and 1 year after engraftment to test the hypothesis of whether histologic categories at week 6 could predict the development of interstitial fibrosis and dnDSAs at 1 year. The main finding was that early inflammation was associated with dnDSAs at 1 year, regardless of the presence of interstitial fibrosis in the 6-week biopsy. Inflammation and subclinical antibody–mediated rejection in 1 year have been shown recently to be independent predictors of fibrosis and subsequent graft loss (15).

Existing fibrosis in very early allograft biopsies is usually derived from the deceased donor and does not constitute a main risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF), which is more a consequence of acute tubular damage. A recent Banff consensus paper addressed the issue of histopathologic scoring of preimplantation biopsies (16). Gelens et al. (17) found in their single-center analysis that fibrosis in preimplantation biopsies did not increase the risk of DGF but was predictive of the subsequent extent of fibrosis and tubular atrophy at 12 months. However, inflammation of the donor organ in preimplantation biopsies was independently associated with the risk of DGF, but causality could not be established (18). It is an appealing possibility that grafts experiencing DGF as a consequence of systemic inflammation and hypoperfusion in the donor and ischemia-reperfusion injury should have an elevated risk of developing progressive tubulointerstitial fibrosis and premature graft loss. In fact, many but not all studies reported a strong independent association of DGF and graft survival (19).

In this issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Heilman et al. (20) specifically addressed this burning topic of whether the progression of interstitial fibrosis determined by the Banff ci score was modified by DGF. The investigators made use of sequential management biopsies obtained within the first year after transplantation between 2003 and 2014. The main outcome was the evolution of changes in the Banff ci score between the DGF and primary graft function. DGF was defined as dialysis dependency in the first week after transplantation. Paired biopsies were available for 155 patients with DGF and 283 patients without DGF. The main unexpected finding was that a Banff ci score >0 in postreperfusion biopsies was independently associated with higher odds of DGF but that the progression of fibrosis in the first year was not different between the DGF and non-DFG group. Even when the DGF group was dichotomized into longer (≥9 days) versus shorter (7>DGF>9 days) dialysis dependency, there was no difference in the slope of fibrosis progression in the multivariable mixed linear regression models.

Furthermore, the investigators did not find an association of DGF with graft survival in the cohort transplanted after 2011, which fits with their histologic findings at 1 year. It is notable that DGF transplants performed before 2012 exhibited such an association compared with primary functioning grafts. However, as discussed above, most of the larger registry analyses showed a strong independent association of DGF with graft attrition. What could explain this difference?

First, donor characteristics differed between the DGF and primary function groups. The DGF group consisted of more men donors after circulatory death with lower terminal eGFR and longer cold ischemic time. Second, the authors observed an era effect; lower graft survival rates at 3 years were only observed in patients with DGF who had been engrafted before 2012 but not thereafter. This may be attributed to procedural changes described, such as different induction therapy. Until 2011, rabbit antithymocyte globulin was used and thereafter, alemtuzumab, and patients over the age of 65 years old received basiliximab. In the group of patients receiving depleting agents, steroids were withdrawn on day 5, whereas the others were maintained on steroids. Third, patients who experienced early, mostly technical graft loss were excluded from the analysis, because the investigators were mainly interested in the progression of fibrosis within the first year. Fourth, the median follow-up time was approximately 4 years in the non-DGF group and only approximately 3 years in the DGF group, and thus, not many graft losses can likely be attributed to progressive fibrosis.

The strength of the paper, however, is in the large number of paired management biopsies from one center read by the local pathologists, which reduces the well known difficulties and variabilities in the scoring of fibrosis (8). Furthermore, the authors accounted for the possible effect of subclinical inflammation on fibrosis progression by adjusting their mixed model for the presence of tubulitis in the 4-month biopsy when available. Because the authors’ transplant center accepts a high rate of expanded criteria donors with a propensity for AKI before organ retrieval, the findings may not directly be applicable to DGF cases in standard criteria donors without AKI before procurement.

The good news from the paper by Heilman et al. (20) is that DGF does not seem to cause an acceleration of fibrosis in the first 2 years after transplantation. This observation is of critical importance to justify the continuously growing rate of donation after cardiac death donations, where a higher rate of DGF is observed but without penalization of midterm allograft function and probably morphology in recent eras (21). Of note, recent registry analyses from the Australia and New Zealand dialysis and transplant registry (ANZDATA) found the contrary (22). DGF was defined in these studies as only 3 days of post–transplant dialysis dependency, and only transplants until 2012 were included. In that era, the paper by Heilman et al. (20) is in line with the ANZDATA reports.

As also evidenced in the study by Heilman et al. (20), tubulointerstitial fibrosis is a highly prevalent progressive indolent process without proven therapeutic interventions. Therefore, future strategies will need to focus on prevention. The only realistic options are to minimize the alloimmune response to the graft. This can be accomplished by tolerance protocols that are currently only available for selected live donor recipients in few transplant centers worldwide and have their own specific unwanted effects. A likely more promising approach would be precise matching of donor and recipient HLA epitopes, in which multiple potential immunogenic sites of the HLA molecule are taken into consideration (23,24).

Other than the undoubted importance of HLA alloimmunity, non–HLA epitope matching may gain more attention in the near future. Opelz et al. (25) showed, in a landmark paper in 2005, that graft survival from HLA–identical sibling donors depended on the overall sensitization, suggesting that non-HLA alloimmunity is of non-negligible importance. We look forward to the findings from consortia recently assembled to study the effect of genome–wide donor and recipient incompatibilities on hard outcomes (26).

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related article, “Progression of Interstitial Fibrosis during the First Year after Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation among Patients with and without Delayed Graft Function,” on pages 2225–2232.

  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Lovisa S,
    2. LeBleu VS,
    3. Tampe B,
    4. Sugimoto H,
    5. Vadnagara K,
    6. Carstens JL,
    7. Wu CC,
    8. Hagos Y,
    9. Burckhardt BC,
    10. Pentcheva-Hoang T,
    11. Nischal H,
    12. Allison JP,
    13. Zeisberg M,
    14. Kalluri R
    : Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition induces cell cycle arrest and parenchymal damage in renal fibrosis. Nat Med 21: 998–1009, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Meng XM,
    2. Nikolic-Paterson DJ,
    3. Lan HY
    : TGF-β: The master regulator of fibrosis. Nat Rev Nephrol 12: 325–338, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Venner JM, Famulski KS, Reeve J, Chang J, Halloran PF: Relationships among injury, fibrosis, and time in human kidney transplants. JCI Insight 1: e85323, 2016
  4. ↵
    1. Halloran PF,
    2. Famulski KS,
    3. Reeve J
    : Molecular assessment of disease states in kidney transplant biopsy samples. Nat Rev Nephrol 12: 534–548, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Schwarz C,
    2. Lawitschka A,
    3. Böhmig GA,
    4. Dauber EM,
    5. Greinix H,
    6. Kozakowski N,
    7. Mühlbacher F,
    8. Berlakovich GA,
    9. Wekerle T
    : Kidney transplantation with corticosteroids alone after haploidentical HSCT from the same donor. Transplantation 100: 2219–2221, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Kawai T, Sachs DH, Sprangers B, Spitzer TR, Saidman SL, Zorn E, Tolkoff-Rubin N, Preffer F, Crisalli K, Gao B, Wong W, Morris H, LoCascio SA, Sayre P, Shonts B, Williams WW Jr., Smith RN, Colvin RB, Sykes M, Cosimi AB: Long-term results in recipients of combined HLA-mismatched kidney and bone marrow transplantation without maintenance immunosuppression. Am J Transplant 14: 1599–1611, 2014
  7. ↵
    1. Prókai Á,
    2. Csohány R,
    3. Sziksz E,
    4. Pap D,
    5. Balicza-Himer L,
    6. Boros S,
    7. Magda B,
    8. Vannay Á,
    9. Kis-Petik K,
    10. Fekete A,
    11. Peti-Peterdi J,
    12. Szabó AJ
    : Calcineurin-inhibition results in upregulation of local renin and subsequent vascular endothelial growth factor production in renal collecting ducts. Transplantation 100: 325–333, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Farris AB, Chan S, Climenhaga J, Adam B, Bellamy CO, Seron D, Colvin RB, Reeve J, Mengel M: Banff fibrosis study: Multicenter visual assessment and computerized analysis of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies. Am J Transplant 14: 897–907, 2014
  9. ↵
    1. Nankivell BJ,
    2. Borrows RJ,
    3. Fung CL,
    4. O’Connell PJ,
    5. Allen RD,
    6. Chapman JR
    : The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med 349: 2326–2333, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Nankivell BJ,
    2. PʼNg CH,
    3. OʼConnell PJ,
    4. Chapman JR
    : Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity through the lens of longitudinal histology: Comparison of cyclosporine and tacrolimus eras. Transplantation 100: 1723–1731, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Stegall MD, Park WD, Larson TS, Gloor JM, Cornell LD, Sethi S, Dean PG, Prieto M, Amer H, Textor S, Schwab T, Cosio FG: The histology of solitary renal allografts at 1 and 5 years after transplantation. Am J Transplant 11: 698–707, 2011
  12. ↵
    1. Rush D,
    2. Nickerson P,
    3. Gough J,
    4. McKenna R,
    5. Grimm P,
    6. Cheang M,
    7. Trpkov K,
    8. Solez K,
    9. Jeffery J
    : Beneficial effects of treatment of early subclinical rejection: A randomized study. J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 2129–2134, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. ↵
    Rush D, Arlen D, Boucher A, Busque S, Cockfield SM, Girardin C, Knoll G, Lachance JG, Landsberg D, Shapiro J, Shoker A, Yilmaz S: Lack of benefit of early protocol biopsies in renal transplant patients receiving TAC and MMF: A randomized study. Am J Transplant 7: 2538–2545, 2007
  14. ↵
    1. García-Carro C,
    2. Dörje C,
    3. Åsberg A,
    4. Midtvedt K,
    5. Scott H,
    6. Reinholt FP,
    7. Holdaas H,
    8. Seron D,
    9. Reisæter AV
    : Inflammation in early kidney allograft surveillance biopsies with and without associated tubulointerstitial chronic damage as a predictor of fibrosis progression and development of de novo donor specific antibodies [published online ahead of print May 10, 2016]. Transplantation
  15. ↵
    1. Loupy A,
    2. Vernerey D,
    3. Tinel C,
    4. Aubert O,
    5. Duong van Huyen JP,
    6. Rabant M,
    7. Verine J,
    8. Nochy D,
    9. Empana JP,
    10. Martinez F,
    11. Glotz D,
    12. Jouven X,
    13. Legendre C,
    14. Lefaucheur C
    : Subclinical rejection phenotypes at 1 year post-transplant and outcome of kidney allografts. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 1721–1731, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Liapis H, Gaut JP, Klein C, Bagnasco S, Kraus E, Farris AB 3rd, Honsova E, Perkowska-Ptasinska A, David D, Goldberg J, Smith M, Mengel M, Haas M, Seshan S, Pegas KL, Horwedel T, Paliwa Y, Gao X, Landsittel D, Randhawa P: Banff histopathological consensus criteria for preimplantation kidney biopsies [published online ahead of print June 22, 2016]. Am J Transplant
  17. ↵
    1. Gelens MA,
    2. Steegh FM,
    3. van Hooff JP,
    4. van Suylen RJ,
    5. Nieman FH,
    6. van Heurn LW,
    7. Peutz-Kootstra CJ,
    8. Christiaans MH
    : Immunosuppressive regimen and interstitial fibrosis and tubules atrophy at 12 months postrenal transplant. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1010–1017, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Kainz A,
    2. Wilflingseder J,
    3. Mitterbauer C,
    4. Haller M,
    5. Burghuber C,
    6. Perco P,
    7. Langer RM,
    8. Heinze G,
    9. Oberbauer R
    : Steroid pretreatment of organ donors to prevent postischemic renal allograft failure: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 153: 222–230, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Lim WH,
    2. McDonald SP,
    3. Kennedy SE,
    4. Larkins N,
    5. Wong G
    : Association between slow and delayed graft function with graft outcomes in paediatric and adolescent deceased donor kidney transplant recipients [published online ahead of print August 29, 2016]. Transplantation
  20. ↵
    1. Heilman RL,
    2. Smith ML,
    3. Smith BH,
    4. Qaqish I,
    5. Khamash H,
    6. Singer AL,
    7. Kaplan B,
    8. Reddy KS
    : Delayed graft function is not associated with the progression of interstitial fibrosis during the first year after deceased donor kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 2225–2232, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Summers DM,
    2. Watson CJ,
    3. Pettigrew GJ,
    4. Johnson RJ,
    5. Collett D,
    6. Neuberger JM,
    7. Bradley JA
    : Kidney donation after circulatory death (DCD): State of the art. Kidney Int 88: 241–249, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Lim WH,
    2. McDonald SP,
    3. Russ GR,
    4. Chapman JR,
    5. Ma MK,
    6. Pleass H,
    7. Jaques B,
    8. Wong G
    : Association between delayed graft function and graft loss in donation after cardiac death kidney transplants - a paired kidney registry analysis [published online ahead of print July 29, 2016]. Transplantation
  23. ↵
    Wiebe C, Pochinco D, Blydt-Hansen TD, Ho J, Birk PE, Karpinski M, Goldberg A, Storsley LJ, Gibson IW, Rush DN, Nickerson PW: Class II HLA epitope matching-A strategy to minimize de novo donor-specific antibody development and improve outcomes. Am J Transplant 13: 3114–3122, 2013
  24. ↵
    Tambur AR: Hiding in plain sight-A new look at HLA epitopes: A case report [published online ahead of print June 11, 2016]. Am J Transplant
  25. ↵
    1. Opelz G
    ; Collaborative Transplant Study: Non-HLA transplantation immunity revealed by lymphocytotoxic antibodies. Lancet 365: 1570–1576, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    International Genetics & Translational Research in Transplantation Network (iGeneTRAiN): Design and implementation of the international genetics and translational research in transplantation network. Transplantation 99: 2401–2412, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 11 (12)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 11, Issue 12
December 07, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Progression of Interstitial Fibrosis in Kidney Transplantation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Progression of Interstitial Fibrosis in Kidney Transplantation
Rainer Oberbauer
CJASN Dec 2016, 11 (12) 2110-2112; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09770916

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Progression of Interstitial Fibrosis in Kidney Transplantation
Rainer Oberbauer
CJASN Dec 2016, 11 (12) 2110-2112; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09770916
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Opportunities for Improvement in Quality of Care of PD-Related Peritonitis in Children
  • Assessing Genetic Risk for IgA Nephropathy
  • Optimizing Utilization of Kidneys from Hepatitis C–Positive Kidney Donors
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Progression of Interstitial Fibrosis during the First Year after Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation among Patients with and without Delayed Graft Function
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • transplantation
  • fibrosis
  • renal biopsy
  • Disease Progression
  • kidney
  • kidney transplantation
  • Lung Diseases
  • Interstitial

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire