The Demise of Islet Allotransplantation in the US: A Call for an Urgent Regulatory Update The ISLETS FOR US Collaborative

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and more than minimally manipulated human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). Across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as minimally manipulated tissue which has led to islet transplantation becoming a standard-of-care procedure for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and problematic hypoglycemia. As a result of the outdated US regulations, only eleven patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2011-2016 and all in the setting of a clinical trial. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both, better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and “more than minimally manipulated” human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as “minimally manipulated tissue” and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

HLA class I sensitization in islet transplant recipients: report from the Collaborative Islet Transplant Registry

Pancreatic islet transplantation is a promising treatment option for patients severely affected with type 1 diabetes. This report from CITR presents pre- and posttransplant human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I sensitization rates in islet-alone transplantation. Data came from 303 recipients transplanted with islet-alone between January 1999 and December 2008. HLA class I sensitization was determined by the presence of anti-HLA class I antibodies. Panel-reactive antibodies (PRA) from prior to islet infusion and at 6 months, and yearly posttransplant was correlated to measures of islet graft failure. The cumulative number of mismatched HLA alleles increased with each additional islet infusion from a median of 3 for one infusion to 9 for three infusions. Pretransplant PRA was not predictive of islet graft failure. However, development of PRA >20% posttransplant was associated with 3.6-fold (p < 0.001) increased hazard ratio for graft failure. Patients with complete graft loss who had discontinued immunosuppression had significantly higher rate of PRA ≥ 20% compared to those with functioning grafts who remained on immunosuppression. Exposure to repeat HLA class I mismatch at second or third islet infusions resulted in less frequent development of de novo HLA class I antibodies when compared to increased class I mismatch. The development of HLA class I antibodies while on immunosuppression is associated with subsequent islet graft failure. The risk of sensitization may be reduced by minimizing the number of islet donors used per recipient, and in the absence of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies, repeating HLA class I mismatches with subsequent islet infusions