Acute Allograft Rejection in Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: An Educational Case Report

Kidney transplant (KT) recipients have an increased risk of malignancy due to chronic immunosuppression. The emerging use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been a promising development for the treatment of malignancy, but their use adds to the complexity of immunosuppression management for KT recipients. This case report describes 2 cases of acute rejection in KT recipients following ICI initiation and discusses the balance of malignancy treatment with adequate immunosuppression.

The first patient is a 44-year-old male KT recipient with a diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma presenting with acute kidney injury 6 days following initiation of an ICI. The second patient is a 73-year-old male KT recipient with a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma presenting with acute kidney injury 2 weeks following initiation of an ICI.

Both patients were diagnosed with acute rejection in the setting of reduced immunosuppression and initiation of an ICI.

Both cases received an increased dose of steroid without improvement of graft function. The first patient subsequently underwent a delayed graft nephrectomy due to complications of acute rejection, whereas the second patient did not undergo nephrectomy.

The first patient experienced complications including perioperative bleeding requiring multiple operations, but ultimately stabilized on hemodialysis and showed a durable response to ICI. The second patient remained dialysis-dependent post-ICI treatment and was readmitted with allograft complications leading to his eventual death.

This study underscores the complexity of managing KT recipients diagnosed with malignancy and receiving ICIs. The balance between immunosuppression reduction to treat malignancy and preventing allograft rejection presents a significant challenge. Key considerations include the risk of acute allograft rejection and patient-centered decision-making. These cases highlight the need for further research to develop evidence-based guidelines for managing this patient population. In addition, the patient perspective in this study highlights the importance of careful risk-benefit analysis and the impact of treatment decisions on patient-focused outcomes.