4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Late Acute Rejection After Allograft Limbal Stem Cell Transplantation: Evidence for Long-Term Donor Survival

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 26-31

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000970

Keywords

keratolimbal allograft; limbal stem cell transplantation; acute rejection; immunosuppression

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY024349, P30 EY001792, K12 EY021475] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the clinical presentation and management of late (>3.0 years) acute graft rejection in keratolimbal allograft (KLAL) recipients. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective observational case series. Six eyes of 6 patients with ocular surface transplant at a mean age of 36.2 years were seen at 3 tertiary referral centers for acute graft rejection between 2007 and 2013. Main outcome measures included strength of systemic immunosuppression (SI) at the time of rejection, time to rejection, and clinical presentation of rejection. Results: Preoperative diagnoses included total limbal stem cell deficiency because of aniridia (n = 2) or chemical injury (n = 4). After an initially successful outcome, patients experienced late acute graft rejection at a mean time of 67.8 +/- 24.1 months (range: 41-98) after KLAL while receiving suboptimal levels of SI because of medication taper (n = 5) or noncompliance (n = 1). Objective findings included an epithelial rejection line (n = 6), edema (n = 2), corneal epithelial irregularities (n = 2), and neovascularization (n = 1). Antirejection management consisted of topical corticosteroids (n = 6) and augmentation of SI therapy (n = 5). Conclusions: These cases of late acute graft rejection in KLAL patients support the notion that allodonor cells can persist over the long run and remain at risk for immunologic rejection. It further underscores the fact that long-term success with KLAL may require extension of SI beyond the first few years, albeit at lower levels individualized to each patient.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available