There is an unmet clinical need for immunotherapeutic strategies that specifically target the active immune cells participating in the process of rejection after solid organ transplantation. The monocyte–macrophage cell lineage is increasingly recognized as a major player in acute and chronic allograft immunopathology. The dominant presence of cells of this lineage in rejecting allograft tissue is associated with worse graft function and survival. Monocytes and macrophages contribute to alloimmunity via diverse pathways: antigen processing and presentation, costimulation, pro-inflammatory cytokine production, and tissue repair. Cross talk with other recipient immune competent cells and donor endothelial cells leads to amplification of inflammation and a cytolytic response in the graft. Surprisingly, little is known about therapeutic manipulation of the function of cells of the monocyte–macrophage lineage in transplantation by immunosuppressive agents. Although not primarily designed to target monocyte–macrophage lineage cells, multiple categories of currently prescribed immunosuppressive drugs, such as mycophenolate mofetil, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, and calcineurin inhibitors, do have limited inhibitory effects. These effects include diminishing the degree of cytokine production, thereby blocking costimulation and inhibiting the migration of monocytes to the site of rejection. Outside the field of transplantation, some clinical studies have shown that the monoclonal antibodies canakinumab, tocilizumab, and infliximab are effective in inhibiting monocyte functions. Indirect effects have also been shown for simvastatin, a lipid lowering drug, and bromodomain and extra-terminal motif inhibitors that reduce the cytokine production by monocytes–macrophages in patients with diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis. To date, detailed knowledge concerning the origin, the developmental requirements, and functions of diverse specialized monocyte–macrophage subsets justifies research for therapeutic manipulation. Here, we will discuss the effects of currently prescribed immunosuppressive drugs on monocyte/macrophage features and the future challenges.

Monocytes and macrophages play key roles in many disease states, including cellular and humoral rejection after solid organ transplantation (SOT). To suppress alloimmunity after SOT, immunosuppressive drug therapy is necessary. However, little is known about the effects of the immunosuppressive drugs tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (MPA) on monocyte activation and function. Here, the effect of these immunosuppressants on monocytes was investigated by measuring phosphorylation of three intracellular signaling proteins which all have a major role in monocyte function: p38MAPK, ERK and Akt. In addition, biological functions downstream of these signaling pathways were studied, including cytokine production, phagocytosis and differentiation into macrophages. To this end, blood samples from healthy volunteers were spiked with diverse concentrations of tacrolimus and MPA. Tacrolimus (200 ng/ml) inhibited phosphorylation of p38MAPK by 30% (mean) in CD14+ monocytes which was significantly less than in activated CD3+ T cells (max 60%; p < 0.05). This immunosuppressive agent also partly inhibited p-AKT (14%). MPA, at a therapeutic concentration showed the strongest effect on p-AKT (27% inhibition). p-ERK was inhibited with a maximum of 15% after spiking with either tacrolimus or MPA. The production of IL-1β and phagocytosis by monocytes were not affected by tacrolimus concentrations, whereas MPA did inhibit IL-1β production by 50%. Monocyte/macrophage polarization was shifted to an M2-like phenotype in the presence of tacrolimus, while MPA increased the expression of M2 surface markers, including CD163 and CD200R, on M1 macrophages. These results show that tacrolimus and MPA do not strongly affect monocyte function, apart from a change in macrophage polarization, to a clinically relevant degree.

Insulin analogues are widely used in clinical practice. Modifications on the insulin molecular structure can affect the affinity and activation towards two closely related receptor tyrosine kinases: the insulin receptor (INSR) and the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R). A switch towards higher IGF1R affinity is likely to emphasize mitogenesis rather than glucose metabolism. Relevant well-validated experimental tools to address the insulin analogue activation of either INSR or IGF1R are missing. We have established a panel of human MCF-7 breast cancer cell lines either ectopically expressing the INSR (A or B isoform) in conjunction with a stable knockdown of the IGF1R or ectopically expressing the IGF1R in conjunction with a stable knockdown of the INSR. In these cell lines, we systematically evaluated the INSR and IGF1R receptor activation and downstream mitogenic signalling of all major clinical relevant insulin analogues in comparison with insulin and IGF1R. While most insulin analogues primarily activated the INSR, the mitogenic activation pattern of glargine was highly similar to IGF1 and insulin AspB10, known to bind IGF1R and induce carcinogenesis. Yet, in a long-term proliferation assay, the proliferative effect of glargine was not much different from regular insulin or other insulin analogues. This was caused by the rapid enzymatic conversion into its two metabolic active metabolites M1 and M2, with reduced mitogenic signalling through the IGF1R. In summary, based on our new cell models, we identified a similar mitogenic potency of insulin glargine and AspB10. However, rapid enzymatic conversion of glargine precludes a sustained activation of the IGF1R signalling pathway.

The profound involvement of cytokines in allograft rejection makes the molecules that control their actions, members of the Jak-Stat pathway, ideal targets for pharmacological intervention. Numerous studies have demonstrated that Jak3 is widely involved in the activation cascade and function of most immune cells. Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that targets Jak1/Jak3 dependent Stat activation, has been assessed as a substitute for calcineurin inhibitor therapy after low-to-moderate risk kidney transplantation in 3 randomized trials. Results using fixed-dose regimens showed a low incidence of rejection and better renal function with less interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy versus calcineurin inhibitor therapy. However, the safety profile of tofacitinib was poor, including increased incidences of cytomegalovirus disease, herpes zoster, BK virus, and nephropathy, which led to the discontinuation of its development for transplantation. High tofacitinib concentrations were independently associated with serious infection. Dosing according to exposure levels, coupled with pharmacodynamic monitoring based on phosphorylation of Stat5, could improve safety compared to the early fixed-dose regimens. Future studies could assess individualized dosing based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic monitoring. Additionally, because the increase of viral infections under tofacitinib may have been influenced by overlapping toxicity with concomitant mycophenolic acid, exploration of alternative adjunctive therapies (eg, a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor or belatacept) may demonstrate a better efficacy/safety profile. We believe that Jak inhibitors are a good and useful addition to the immunosuppressive armentarium for kidney transplant patients, and that new studies with personalized drug dosing, improved immune monitoring, and better patient selection should be performed.