# Patent

## Title
Methods for treating transplant rejection

## Abstract

Compositions and methods for treating transplant rejection in a mammalian transplant recipient are provided. The method involves administering a therapeutically effective amount of Serp-1, its analogs, and biologically active fragments thereof in combination with an anti-rejection agent, such as cyclosporin, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier to a subject in need of such treatment. The compositions and methods are useful for treating acute and chronic allograft and xenograft transplant rejection in mammals.

## Background
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/698,435 filed on Oct. 27, 2000, now abandoned, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/161,643 filed on Oct. 27, 1999.


FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to the use of a viral protein, Serp-1, and its analogs, and biologically active fragments thereof in combination with an anti-rejection agent to treat acute and chronic transplant rejection in mammals.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The success of surgical transplantation of organs and tissue is largely dependent on the ability of the clinician to modulate the immune response of the transplant recipient. Specifically, the immunological response directed against the transplanted foreign tissue must be controlled if the tissue is to survive and function. It is known that the normally functioning immune system of the transplant recipient recognizes the transplanted organ as “non-self” tissue and thereafter mounts an immune response to the presence of the transplanted organ. Left unchecked, the immune response will generate a multitude of cells and proteins that will ultimately result in the loss of biological functioning or the death of the transplanted organ.
Transplant rejection remains the leading impediment to long term graft survival in humans. Current immunosuppressive therapy used to treat rejection reactions suppresses T and B cell activity but does not. alter the inflammatory responses that are believed to contribute to transplant rejection (Fryer et al. (1996) Transplantation 62(5)553-559).
Tissue and organ transplant recipients are generally treated with one or more cytotoxic agents in an effort to suppress the transplant recipient's immune response against the transplanted organ or tissue. For example, cyclosporin A (e.g., Neoral® or Sandimmune®), a cyclic peptide consisting of 11 amino acid residues and produced by the fungus species Tolypocladium Inflatum Gams, is currently used to administer to the recipients of kidney, liver, pancreas and heart allografts (i.e., wherein donor and recipient are of the same species). However, administration of cyclosporin A is not without drawbacks as the drug can cause kidney and liver toxicity as well as hypertension. Moreover, the use of cyclosporin A can lead to malignancies (such as lymphoma) and lead to opportunistic infection due to the systemic immunosuppression it induces in patients receiving long term treatment with the drug., i.e., the normal protective immune response of the host to pathogenic microorganisms is downregulated thereby increasing the risk of infections caused by such microorganisms.
Currently available immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporin A fail to prevent either acute or chronic refractory rejection. Nearly 20% of cadaver kidney and cardiac grafts are lost during the first year post-transplant, primarily due to acute rejection (Uretsky et al. (1987) Circulation 76:827-834; Hosenpud et al. (1994) Transplantation 13:561-570; Canadian Organ Replacement register 1993 report p. 187; Cook et al. (1987) Clinical Transplants 277-285). Chronic rejection poses formidable hurdles for extant immunosuppressant therapies. 50% of lung transplant recipients develop bronchitis obliterans, the hallmark of chronic allograft rejection (Miller, L. (1995) J. Heart Lung Transplant 14:S109-S110; vonWillebrand et al. (1997) Transplantation Proc. 29:1530-1531; Hayry et al. (1996) Transplantation Proc. 28:2337-2338; Tilney et al. (1995) Transplantation Proc. 27:2123-2125; Tilney et al. (1991) Transplantation Proc. 52:389-398). Only 20% of cadaver renal transplants continue to function at ten years post-transplant (Uretsky et al. (1987) Circulation 76:827-834; Hosenpud et al. (1994) Transplantation 13:561-570; Canadian Organ Replacement register 1993 report p. 187; Cook et al. (1987) Clinical Transplants 277-285). Transplant vasculopathy, induced by chronic rejection and ischemia, is the leading cause of cardiac transplant graft loss after the first year post transplant (Miller, L. (1995) J. Heart Lung Transplant 14:S109-S110). Moreover, current post-transplantation therapy requires continuous (e.g. daily) administration of an anti-rejection agent for the duration of the transplant recipient's life.
Although acute rejection is mainly T-cell activated, the role of inflammation has been recently implicated in the pathogenesis of rejection (Hayry et al. (1996) Transplantation Proc. 28:2337-2338). Activation of many cytokines (e.g. IL-2, IFNΥ, TNFα) and chemokines (e.g. RANTES, IL-8, MCP-1 and MIP-1α) occurs during inflammatory responses to graft rejection (Hayry et al. (1997) Transplantation Proc. 29:2551; vonWillebrand et al. (1997) Transplantation Proc. 29:1530-1531; Tilney et al. (1993) 25:861-862). It is believed that decreasing initial inflammation may lead to lower acute and long term rejection rates and improved graft function (Fryer et al. (1996) Transplantation 62(5)553-559).
Chronic rejection is less well understood. Historically, chronic vascular rejection has been described as repetitive endothelial injury leading to intimal proliferation, hypertrophy and subsequent luminal occlusion (Tilney et al. (1995) Transplantation Proc. 27:2123-2125; Tilney et al. (1991) Transplantation Proc. 52:389-398). Some researchers have proposed inflammatory, humoral, cellular, and cytokine-related non-specific scarring mechanisms as etiologies of chronic rejection (Hayry et al. (1996) Transplantation Proc. 28:2337-2338; Tilney et al. (1995) Transplantation Proc. 27:2123-2125; Tilney et al. (1991) Transplantation Proc. 52:389-398). It is now known that alloantigen-independent factors play an essential role in chronic rejection. For example, human kidney grafts from identical twins lose their grafts at ten years (Tilney et al.,(1986) World J. Surgery 10:381-388; Glassock et al. (1968) Medicine 47:411-454). These isograft losses are believed to be a consequence of injury during preservation and reperfusion. Injury from multiple etiologies activates thrombotic and inflammatory cascades in the vascular wall that converge, initiating a rapid pervasive response which stimulates cellular migration, invasion and proliferation at sites of vessel injury (Aziz et al. (1995) Lung Transplant 14:S123-S136; Libby et al., (1992) Circulation 86:Supp:III:47-52). As a result, inflammatory mediators and cytokines are upregulated and secreted in response to endothelial injury, which results in the accumulation of macrophages that, in turn, upregulate more chemokines (e.g. RANTES, IL-8, MCP-1 and MIP-1α) (vonWillebrand et al. (1997) Transplantation Proc. 29:1530-1531), cytokines (e.g. IL-1, IL-6, TNFα) (Tilney et al. (1993) 25:861-862), and growth factors (Hayry et al. (1997) Transplantation Proc. 29:2551).
Large DNA viruses have evolved multiple, highly effective mechanisms over millions of years which enhance or inhibit the thrombotic/thrombolytic and inflammatory cascades and alter cellular invasion into areas of tissue injury (Gooding, et al. (1992) Cell, 667:141-150; Spriggs, M. K. (1996) Annu. Rev. Immunol, 14:101-130; Smith G. L. (1994) Trends Microbiol., 82:80-88). Both the thrombotic/thrombolytic serine proteinases and the inflammatory cytokine cascades have been recently demonstrated to stimulate cellular chemotaxis and mitogenesis (Blasi, F (1997) Trends in Immunol. Today, 18:415-419; Luster, A. D. (1998) N. End. Journal, 338: 436-445). The proteins secreted by myxoma virus frequently. mimic cellular immune molecules such as cytokine receptors and function by binding and inhibiting cytokines and chemokines or other regulatory proteins (McFadden, et al. (1995) Leukocvte Biol., 57:731-738; Mossman, et al. (1995) J. Biol. Chem., 270:3031-3038). We have previously reported that Serp-1, a serine proteinase inhibitor, inhibits inflammation and atheroma development in rabbit and rat models after balloon injury and dramatically reduces macrophage invasion and atherosclerotic plaque growth in cholesterol fed rabbits after angioplasty injury (Lucas, et al. (1996) Circulation, 94:2890-2900). Preliminary studies in a rat aortic allograft model have also demonstrated significant reductions both in mononuclear cell invasion and transplant vasculopathy after infusion of these viral proteins (Miller, et al. (2000) Circulation, 101: 1598-1605; Mossman, et al. (1996) Virology, 215: 17-30).
Serp-1 is a 55kD glycoprotein that inhibits a variety of serine proteinases that regulate the inflammatory response. Serp-1 regulates thrombolytic proteins, plasmin, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and urokinase. A single local infusion of Serp-1 protein, cloned and expressed from a vaccinia vector, at the site of balloon injury dramatically decreases subsequent plaque growth and macrophage invasion (Lucas, et al. (1996) supra). Serp-1 modulates transcription of elements of the thrombolytic cascade soon after endothelial injury. Serp-1 is the subject of three U.S. Pat. No. 5,686,409, entitled “Antirestenosis Protein”; and U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,919,014 and 5,939,525 both entitled “Methods of Treating Inflammation and Compositions Therefor.”
It has been discovered in accordance with the present invention that co-administration of Serp-1, Serp-1 analogs and biologically active fragments thereof and an anti-rejection agent are capable of preventing allograft and xenograft transplant rejection in mammals without the need for sustained administration of an anti-rejection agent.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with the present invention, it has been surprisingly discovered that co-administration of Serp-1, its analogs and biologically active fragments thereof, and an anti-rejection agent treats allograft and xenograft transplant rejection in animals, including humans. It has also been surprisingly discovered in accordance with the present invention that co-administration of Serp-1 and an anti-rejection agent for a period of about 1 to about 30 days post-transplantation is effective to treat graft rejection without further administration of an anti-rejection agent. In a preferred embodiment co-administration of Serp-1 and an anti-rejection agent is for a period of about 8 to about 15 days post-transplantation.
The present invention provides a method for treating graft rejection in mammals. Graft rejection treatable in accordance with the present invention includes allograft and xenograft transplanted organs. In accordance with the present invention, Serp-1, Serp-1analogs or biologically active fragments thereof, are co-administered with an anti-rejection agent to a subject in need of such treatment for a time and under conditions sufficient to treat graft rejection.
One embodiment of the invention is directed to treating mammalian kidney transplant rejection. Another embodiment of the invention is directed to treating mammalian-heart transplant rejection. Still another embodiment of the invention is directed to treating graft rejection of an organ transplanted from one mammalian species to another, distinct mammalian species. In these embodiments of the invention, the Serp-1, Serp-1 analog or biologically active fragment thereof is delivered together with an anti-rejection agent e.g., Cyclosporin A in a manner consistent with conventional methodologies associated with transplantation of mammalian organs in order to treat graft rejection.
In another embodiment of the present invention, pharmaceutical compositions are provided which include Serp-1, its analogs or biologically fragments thereof and an anti-rejection agent, both of which are admixed with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
These and other objects of the invention are accomplished by the co-administration of Serp-1, its analogs and biologically active fragments thereof in amounts sufficient to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.



BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 depicts a surgical model of kidney transplantation in mice.
FIG. 2 shows a histopathological comparison of Serp-1 treated renal allografts with controls.
FIG. 2(A) shows a representative renal allograft treated with CsA alone showing typical intimal thickening in an arteriole;
FIG. 2(B) shows a-representative renal allograft treated with CsA and a short course of Serp-1 (high dose) showing normal appearance of an arteriole;
FIG. 2(C) shows a representative renal allograft treated with CsA alone, showing typical scarring in a glomerule;
FIG. 2(D) shows a representative renal allograft treated with CsA and a short course of Serp-1 (high dose) showing normal architecture of a glomerule.
FIG. 3 shows that Serp-1/Neoral® produces significant decreases in the percentage of diseased coronary vessels versus controls;
FIG. 4 depicts the mean palpation score of the four groups over a 13 week follow-up period. The mean palpation score of the control group was lower than in the three groups treated with Serp-1 and Neoral®;
FIG. 5 shows that Serp-1/CsA protects coronary vessels from graft vascular disease versus CsA treatment alone.



DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with the present invention, it has been surprisingly discovered that the protein Serp-1, a serine protease inhibitor produced by malignant rabbit fibroma virus (MRV) and myxoma virus (MYX), its analogs and biologically active fragments thereof in combination with an anti-rejection agent treats acute and chronic transplant rejection in mammals. The present invention, therefore, is useful for treating transplant rejection. For purposes of the present invention, the terms “treat”, “treating” or “treatment” includes preventing, inhibiting, reducing the occurrence of and/or ameliorating the physiological effects of graft rejection. By “graft rejection” is meant allograft and xenograft transplant rejection.
It has also been surprisingly discovered that co-administration of Serp-1 and an anti-rejection agent for a period of about 1 to about 30 days post-transplant is efficacious to treat graft rejection without further administration of an anti-rejection agent. Preferably, Serp-1 and an anti-rejection agent are co-administered for a period of about 8 to about 15 days post-transplantation. It is further contemplated that the period of co-administration of Serp-1 and an anti-rejection agent is substantially continuous. By “substantially continuous” is meant over a sequential period of days. For example, Monday through the following Monday.
The present invention, therefore, provides an improved method of treating transplant rejection. While not wishing to be bound by a particular mechanism, it is believed that the anti-rejection agent of the present invention blocks immune complexes which function to ameliorate the reaction to the foreign tissue. Serp-1 inhibits early regulatory inflammatory components. By “early regulatory inflammatory components” is meant the activities of neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages or natural killer (NK) cells. The synergistic effect of the active components of the present invention drastically improves transplantation outcome in both short and long term, resulting in no need for administration of an anti-rejection agent after about 1 to about 30 days of treatment.
In accordance with the present invention transplant rejection is characterized by an acute or chronic diminuation in the physiological function of a transplanted organ. Such diminuation in function is measured by biological factors specific to the organ transplanted. For example, for kidney transplant rejection assessment, increased glomerular atrophy, intimal thickening, tubular atrophy, interstitial fibrosis, lymphocyte infiltration and cortical scarring independently or taken together are indicators of graft rejection. Similarly, for heart transplant rejection assessment, increased cardiac vessel disease post-transplant, and increased graft intimal hyperplasia independently or taken together are indicators of graft rejection.
The term “anti-rejection agent” as used herein means any commercially available immunosuppressive pharmaceutical agent which reduces the tendency of a transplanted organ to be rejected by the transplant recipient. Transplant rejection treatment is assessed in accordance with the present invention by one or more of the following organ-dependent parameters: decreased coronary graft intimal hyperplasia compared to control grafted vessels; renal function as measured by serial serum creatinine levels; graft survival prolongation; hyalinization and cortical scarring in renal grafts.
Anti-rejection agents in accordance with the present invention are contemplated to include immunosuppressive agents. Anti-rejection agents contemplated by the present invention specifically include but are not limited to cyclosporin (e.g., Cyclosporin A, Sandimmune®, Neoral®, (Novartis), Rapimmune® (American Home Products) FK501 (Fujisawa), CELLCEPT® (Roche, Syntex), IMUREK®, SPANIDIN® and PROGRAF®). The term “subject” as used herein is taken to mean any mammalian patient to which the compositions of the invention may be administered. Subjects specifically intended for treatment with the compositions and methodologies of the present invention include humans, as well as non-human primates, sheep, horses, cattle, goats, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, poultry, hamsters, rats and mice, as well as the organs, derived or originating from these hosts.
In the aforementioned embodiments of the invention, the Serp-1/anti-rejection agent composition is delivered, for treating transplant rejection, in a manner consistent with conventional methodologies associated with transplantation of mammalian organs such as for example, intravenously, intra-articularly, intraperitoneally, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously. In a preferred embodiment Serp-1 is co-administered with cyclosporin (e.g. Cyclosporin A (CsA) or Neoral®).
The preferred Serp-1/CsA combination of the present invention may be administered to a human patient, preferably as a pharmaceutical composition in a therapeutically effective amount. The pharmaceutical compositions of the present invention contain a therapeutically effective dose of the anti-rejection agent and/or combinations of anti-rejection agents and Serp-1 protein, homologs or analogs thereof or a biologically active fragment of the Serp-1 protein, together with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. However, it is contemplated that a therapeutically effective amount of anti-rejection agent or combination thereof can be administered from about 1 to about 30 days prior to administration of a therapeutically effective amount of Serp-1 alone and/or Serp-1 together with the anti-rejection agent, to achieve the desired graft-rejection treatment. By “prior” is meant within about one day of the co-administration of the Serp-1/anti-rejection agent combination of the present invention.
The term “therapeutically effective amount” means the dose needed to effectively treat the physiological effects of graft rejection.
As used herein, “analogs” is meant to include substitutions or alterations in the amino acid sequence of the Serp-1 protein, which substitutions or alterations (e.g., additions and deletions) maintain the anti-inflammatory properties of the protein when delivered to the site of inflammation either directed at the site, i.e., locally, or systemically. For purposes of the present invention, the term “analog” includes amino acid insertional derivatives of Serp-1 such as amino and/or carboxyl terminal fusions as well as intrasequence insertions of single or multiple amino acids. Insertional amino acid sequence variants are those in which one or more amino acid residues are introduced into a predetermined site in the protein. Random insertion is also possible with suitable screening of the resulting product. Deletional variants are characterized by removal of one or more amino acids from the sequence. Substitutional amino acid variants are those in which at least one residue inserted in its place. Where the protein is derivatized by amino acid substitution, amino acids are generally replaced by other amino acids having similar physical chemical properties such as hydrophobicity, hydrophilicity, electronegativity, bulky side chains and the like. Examples of conservative substitutions include the substitution of a non-polar (hydrophobic) residue such as isoleucine, valine, leucine or methionine for another. Likewise, the present invention contemplates the substitution of a polar (hydrophilic) residue such as between arginine and lysine, between glutamine and asparagine, and between glycine and serine. Additionally, the substitution of a basic residue such as lysine, arginine or histidine for another or the substitution of an acidic residue such as aspartic acid or glutamic acid for another is also contemplated.
As used herein, the term “analogs” also encompasses homologs of Serp-1, i.e., corresponding amino acid sequences derived from other serpins and having the same or substantially the same anti-inflammatory properties. As used herein, the term “biologically active fragments” refers to fragments of Serp-1 or Serp-1 analogs which do not encompass the entire length of the Serp-1 polypeptide but which nevertheless maintain the anti-inflammatory properties of the entire Serp-1 polypeptide or analogs thereof when delivered to the site of inflammation either at the site (i.e., locally) or systemically.
Serp-1 amino acid variants may be readily made using. peptide synthetic techniques well known in the art such as solid phase peptide synthesis (Merrifield synthesis) and the like or by recombinant DNA techniques well known in the art. Techniques for making substitution mutations at predetermined sites in DNA include, for example, M13 mutagenesis. Manipulation of DNA sequences to produce substitutional, insertional, or deletional variants are conveniently described elsewhere such as Sambrook, et al., 1989, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
For purposes of the present invention, analogs of Serp-1 also include single or multiple substitutions, deletions and/or additions of any component(s) naturally or artificially associated with the Serp-1 such as carbohydrate, lipid and/or other proteinaceous moieties. All such molecules are encompassed by the term Serp-1 analogs.
In one embodiment of the invention, in order to increase the specific activity of the prepared Serp-1 protein, the cysteine residue at position 244 may be substituted with another amino acid residue, for example alanine. Such a substitution causes the Serp-1 protein to be more biologically active since Cys244 is the predicted position for Serp-1 dimer formation through disulfide bridging. Because Cys244 lies very close to the reactive center of the Serp-1 protein, Serp-1 dimers are thought to have a disturbed and obfuscated reactive center thereby rendering them biologically inactive. Lomas, et al., 1993, J. Biol. Chem., 268(1):516-521. A mutation at position 244 prevents the formation of Serp-1 dimers in the production of Serp-1 through recombinant DNA means. A decrease in the presence of Serp-1 dimers in a preparative sample is useful since the specific activity of the isolated protein will be increased and thus less protein will be needed in a pharmaceutical preparation.
The inhibitory activity of serpins on serine proteinases is believed to revolve around the slow dissociation of the serpin between the P1 and P1′ residues in the active region. Upton, et al. 1990 Virology, 179:618-631. The amino acid sequence Arg/Asp has recently been located at the predicted Serp-1 P1-P1′ site (amino acid residues 319 and 320) and is the predicted site for cleavage by serine proteases. Substitutions of either or both of these two amino acids produces Serp-1 analogs of varying biological activities useful in the practice of the present invention. Serp-1 (e.g., having an amino acid sequence containing the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1) and analogs, homologs and variants of Serp-1 are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,686,409 entitled “Antirestenosis Protein”, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,939,525 entitled “Methods of Treating Inflammation and Compositions Therefor” which teachings are incorporated herein by reference.
The formulation of pharmaceutical compositions is generally known in the art and reference can conveniently be made to Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences, 17th ed., Mack Publishing Co., Easton, Pa. Formulation of the Serp-1 protein/anti-rejection agent for use in the present invention must be stable under the conditions of manufacture and storage and must also be preserved against the contaminating action of microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi. Prevention against microorganism contamination can be achieved through the addition of various antibacterial and antifungal agents.
The pharmaceutical forms of Serp-1/anti-rejection agent suitable for infusion include sterile aqueous solutions or dispersions and sterile powders for the extemporaneous preparation of sterile injectable solutions or dispersion. In all cases, the form must be sterile and must be fluid to the extent that easy syringability exists. Typical carriers include a solvent or dispersion medium containing, for example, water buffered aqueous solutions (i.e., biocompatible buffers), ethanol, polyols such as glycerol, propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, suitable mixtures thereof, surfactants, or vegetable oils. Sterilization can be accomplished by any art-recognized technique, including but not limited to filtration or addition of antibacterial or antifungal agents, for example, paraben, chlorobutanol, phenol, sorbic acid or thimerosal. Further, isotonic agents such as sugars or sodium chloride may be incorporated in the subject compositions.
Production of sterile injectable solutions containing the subject composition is accomplished by incorporating these compounds in the required amount in the appropriate solvent with various ingredients enumerated above, as required, followed by sterilization, preferably filter sterilization. To obtain a sterile powder, the above solutions are vacuum dried or freeze-dried as necessary.
The subject compositions are thus compounded for convenient and effective administration in pharmaceutically effective amounts with a suitable pharmaceutically acceptable carrier in a therapeutically effective dose.
As used herein, the term “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and/or diluent” includes any and all solvents, dispersion media, antibacterial and antifungal agents, microcapsules, liposomes, cationic lipid carriers, isotonic and absorption delaying agents and the like which are not incompatible with the active ingredients e.g., Serp-1,cyclosporin A, Rapimmune® or FK501. The use of such media and agents for pharmaceutically active substances is well known in the art. Supplementary active ingredients may also be incorporated into the compositions and used in the methods of the present invention. Supplementary active ingredients contemplated by the present invention, include, but are not limited to, corticosteroids.
The precise therapeutically effective amount of e.g. Serp-1/cyclosporin A to be used in the methods of this invention applied to humans can be determined by the ordinarily skilled artisan with consideration of individual differences in age, weight, organ size and condition of the patient. It can generally be stated that the Serp-1/anti-rejection agent pharmaceutical preparation of the present invention should be preferably administered in an amount of at least about 1 pg/kg to about 1 g/kg per infusion dose, more preferably in an amount up to about 3 μg/kg to about 1 mg/kg per dose.
It is especially advantageous to formulate parenteral compositions in dosage unit form for ease of administration and uniformity of dosage. Dosage unit form as used herein refers to physically discrete units suited as unitary dosages for the mammalian subjects to be treated; each unit containing a predetermined quantity of active material calculated to produce the desired therapeutic effect in association with the required pharmaceutical carrier. The specification for the novel dosage unit forms of the invention are dictated by and directly depend on the unique characteristics of the active material (e.g., Serp-1 protein, cyclosporin A, Neoral®, FK501, Rapimmune®) and the limitations inherent in the art of compounding such an active material for the treatment of transplant rejection as herein disclosed in detail.
The principal active ingredients are compounded for convenient and effective administration in effective amounts with a suitable pharmaceutically acceptable carrier in dosage unit form as hereinabove disclosed. A unit dosage form can, for example, contain the principal active compound in amounts ranging from about 1 pg/kg to about 1 g/kg. The anti-rejection agent (e.g. Cyclosporin A) or combinations of antirejection agents (e.g., Cyclosporin A and FK501) are contained in a unit dosage form in amounts ranging from about 1 mg/kg to about 20 mg/kg. Where combinations of anti-rejection agents are employed, it is contemplated that the total unit dosage form of such agents ranges from about 1 mg/kg to about 40 mg/kg. In the case of compositions containing supplementary active ingredients, the dosages are determined by reference to the usual dose and manner of administration of the ingredients.
Packaging material used to contain the e.g., Serp-1/CsA active ingredients can comprise glass, plastic, metal or any other suitable inert material so long as the packaging material does not chemically react with any of the ingredients contained therein.
The composition of the present invention may be administered in a manner compatible with the dosage formulation and in such amount as will be therapeutically effective. The compositions of the invention may be administered in any way which is medically acceptable which may depend on the type of transplant to be treated. Possible administration routes include injections, by parenteral routes such as intravascular, intravenous, intra-arterial, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intraventricular, intraepidural, or others. The compositions may also be directly (topically) applied to tissue surfaces during transplantation. Sustained release administration is also specifically included in the invention, by such means as depot injections or erodible implants.
The invention is further illustrated by the following specific examples which are not intended in any way to limit the scope of the invention.
EXAMPLE 1
Serp-1/CsA Prevented Chronic Allograft Rejection in a Rat Kidney Model
F344 male rats served as donors and Lewis rats as recipients for orthotopic kidney transplant. Recipients' native kidneys were removed at the time of surgery (FIG. 1). Animal survival depended entirely on the function of the transplanted kidney. Animals received subtherapeutic CsA (0.75 mg/kg sc) for 10 days to prevent initial acute rejection. Greater than 60% of animals were expected to survive to post-operative day (POD) 140 and exhibit features of chronic renal allograft rejection (i.e. intimal thickening, glomerular sclerosis, tubular atrophy, interstitial as well as cortical fibrosis). These animals were included in our final analysis.
Groups
Group 1: F344 to Lewis with CsA, n=10 (Control);
Group 2: F344 to Lewis with CsA + Serp-1 10 ng/g IV Post-Operative Day,(POD) 0-10-intermediate dose, n=12;
Group 3: F344 to Lewis with CsA + Serp-1 50 ng/g IV POD 0-100high dose, n=12;
Assessment
1) Serial serum creatinine levels on POD 140.
2) CsA levels on POD 7.
3) Routine pathology on POD 140.
Results
Survival and Function
Table 1 shows the survival, CsA levels and renal function. 91% and 67% of the animals survived until sacrifice at 140 days (P>0.05 vs controls). All animals treated with Serp-1 had 100-120 g weight gains and no side effects were found in these animals. Renal function, as measured by serum creatinine levels in the Serp-1 high dose treated group, were significantly better than those in the controls (P<0.01).
Histopathological Findings at Necropsy
Microscopic Hematoxylin-Eosin (HE) and tricrone staining slides were blindly read by Dr. B. Garcia, Professor of Pathology, The University of Western Ontario. The severity of chronic rejection was scored as: 0-no changes, 1-minimal changes, 2-mild changes, 3-moderate changes and 4-marked changes. The median score of histopathological changes and percentage of positive cases are presented in Table 2.
Renal allografts in the control group developed typical chronic rejection characterized by intimal thickening, hyalinization and cortical scarring (FIG. 2A). In contrast, there were only minimal or no vascular changes in the renal allografts treated with the combination of low dose of CsA and a short course of high dose Serp-1 (FIG. 2B). There was no histological improvement in the renal allografts treated with an intermediate dose of Serp-1.
The results demonstrated that a short course of Serp-1/CsA significantly improved renal function and histology, thus preventing chronic transplant rejection in this model. This data suggest that viral protein (Serp-1) combined with a low dose of CsA can be used in clinical transplantation to prevent graft rejection.







TABLE 1







Survival and Creatinine Levels











Group
Survival (days)
Creatinine (mg/L)







Allograft +
>140 × 7
103 ± 42



CsA 0.75 mg/kg
>>28, 30, 32,



(control)
43



Allograft +
>140 × 10
 58 ± 25



CsA 0.75 mg/kg +
>>121



Serp-1 10 ng/g



Allograft +
>140 × 8
 45 ± 6**



CsA 0.75 mg/kg +
>>6, 7, 120,



Serp-1 50 ng/g
135







Note:



CsA given SC on POD 0-9



Serp-1 given IV on POD 0-10



>>sacrificed



**p = 0.029 vs . experimental control













TABLE 2







Histopathological changes












Allograft +
Allograft +




viral
viral




protein/CsA
protein/CsA




(med. dose)
(high dose)



Allograft
n = 10
n = 8
















Glomerular






Loss
 33% (0.0)
30% (0.0)
13% (0.0)



Vascular



Endothelitis
 28% (1.0)
10% (0.0)
0



Intimal
100% (3.0)
70% (2.0)
25% (0.0)*



thickening



Cortical
 71% (1.0)
70% (1.0)
13% (0.0)*



scarring







Note:



data are percentage of animals showing evidence of indicated injury pattern;



number in parentheses indicates median injury score;



Control = CsA 0.75 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) on Post-Operative Day (POD) 0-9;



experimental control = CsA 0.75 mg/kg SC on POD 0-9 + saline 2 cc IV on POD 0-10;



viral protein med. dose = CsA 0.75 mg/kg SC on POD 0-9 + Serp-1 10 ng/g IV on POD 0-10;



viral protein high dose = CsA 0.75 mg/kg SC on POD 0-9 + Serp-1 50 ng/g IV on POD 0-10;



*P < 0.05, vs control, Mann-Whitney test






EXAMPLE 2
Treatment of recipient rats in a model of heterotopic heart transplantation with Serp-1 and Neoral® Cyclosporin (CsA) prevented the development of graft vascular disease (FIG. 3).
The most commonly used model for preclinical research on graft-vascular disease is a model in which a heterotopic heart transplantation is performed in MHC mismatched rats. In this model, rodents treated with cyclosporin A for only the first 7 days after transplantation, developed graft vascular disease when analyzed after sacrifice at postoperative day 90.
Based on our most recent experience with this model, we used the PVG to ACI strain combination in which the recipient was treated with 7.5 mg/kg Neoral® per gavage from day 0 to day 9. In this model the incidence of acute rejection (and therefore loss of the animal) was 30%. The average luminal narrowing in this model was 50% at day 90.
For the model of heterotopic heart transplantation in rats the pulmonary veins and the venae cava were tied off at the time of graft harvest in the donor animal. The heart was perfused with a preservation solution and then immediately implanted into the recipient animal. This was accomplished by anastomizing the donor aorta to the recipient abdominal aorta and the donor pulmonary artery to the recipient vena cava. The vascular clamps were then removed and following reperfusion of the donor organ the heart started beating. Thus, a primary vascularized, non-working heart transplantation model was created. Graft function was monitored by daily palpation. The quality of graft function was scored on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 was a non-beating allograft and 4 was considered a vigorously beating heart allograft. Acute rejection was diagnosed clinically if the palpation score was less than 1. Subacute rejection in this model was defined if the palpation score was less than or equal to 2 with histologic evidence of massive inflammatory infiltrates. The recipient animals were followed for 90 days at which time the animal was sacrificed. The heart was excised. Thin hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections of paraffin embedded samples were assessed by a pathologist blinded to the treatment regimen for the presence of graft vascular disease. The pathologist scored the individual vessel based on a five-point grading scale (0= no involvement, 1 = partial intimal involvement, 2 = concentric intimal thickening, 3 = severe concentric involvement with up to 50% luminal narrowing, 4 = more than 50% luminal narrowing). In addition the lesions were quantified by morphometric analysis. The score and mean morphometrically assessed narrowing were then compared between the individual experimental groups (FIG. 4).
Experimental Groups


    
    
        Group 1 (control): Neoral® monotherapy (7.5 mg/kg Post-Operative Day (poday) 0-9).
        Group 2 (Serp-1 ng/g): Neoral® (7.5 mg/kg poday 0-9) plus Serp-1 at 1 ng/g IV poday 0-9.
        Group 3 (Serp-10 ng/g): Neoral® (7.5 mg/kg poday 0-9) plus Serp-1 at 10 ng/g IV poday 0-9.
        Group 4 (Serp-10 ng/g + 30 + 60): Neoral® (7.5 mg/kg poday 0-9) plus Serp-1 at 10 ng/g IV poday 0-9; Readministration of Serp-1(10 ng/g) + Neoral® (7.5 mg/kg) at post-operative day 30 and 60.

Follow-Up Period

    
    


90 days, then sacrifice.
Follow-Up Parameters:


    
    
        Assessment of graft palpation score: 4=strong beating, 3=moderately beating, 2=weakly beating, 1=not beating.
        Assessment of weight during days of drug treatment and at the time of sacrifice. Weight was expressed as percentage weight change in comparison to the weight at the time of surgery.

Morphometric Analysis

    
    


Each heart was cut horizontally along the long-axis of the graft and 4 sections were stained with H & E.
All coronary arteries were identified in each section and analyzed separately by morphometry.
Morphometric analysis included determination of the free, unocculuded vessel lumen, the vessel area inside the basal membrane (intima plus free lumen) and the total vessel area.
Morphometric outcome variables were:
(a) number of vessels diseased, where disease was defined as any noticeable amount of intima; and
(b) percent intimal area; vessel area inside the basal membrane minus the free lumen divided by the vessel area inside the basal membrane.
Results
Graft Survival
Group 1: 1 animal (#2) rejected the graft at post-operative day 14, another rejected at post-operative day (POD) 7 (#10).
Group 2: 1 animal (#10) rejected the graft at post-operative day 31.
Group 3: all allografts were beating by the end of the follow-up period.
Group 4: all allografts were beating by the end of the follow-up period.
Graft Palpation Score:
The graft palpation score is depicted as the median of each week of follow-up for each animal of each individual group.










Group 1 (Control)









WEEK




















Animal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13























1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


2
4
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2


6
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3


7
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3


8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


9
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2


10
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


11
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2


12
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4


13
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3


14
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3


15
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3



















Group 2 - Serp-1 (1 ng/g) + Neoral ® (7.5 mg/g)









WEEK




















Animal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13























1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3


2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
2


5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


6
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


10
4
3
3
1.5
0
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.


11
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


12
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2


13
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


14
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3


15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3.5
4



















Group 3 - Serp-1 (10 ng/g) + Neoral ® (7.5 mg/kg)









WEEK




















Animal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13























1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3


4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4


6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3


7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4


8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3.5


10
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3


11
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


12
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2


13
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2


14
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4



















Group 4 - Serp-1 (10 ng/g) + Neoral ® (7.5 mg/kg);


Readministration at Day 30 and Day 60 Post-Operation









WEEK




















Animal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13























1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


2
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4


3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3


7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


8
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
2
1.5


9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3.5


10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


11
4
4
4
4
4
4
3.5
3
3
3
3
3
3


12
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


13
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3


14
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4


15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4









Morphometric Analysis

A total of 1658 coronary arteries from 58 allografts were analyzed by morphometry. The number of vessels and the number of diseased coronary arteries per allograft are depicted in the following tables.










Number of coronaries per allograft













1 ng/kg
10 ng/kg
10 ng/kg


ANIMAL
Control
Serp-1
Serp-1
Serp-1 + d30 + d60














1
30
24
26
31


2

27
34
38


3
32
22
26
32


4
28
26
12
43


5
18
24
34
33


6
26
24
39
31


7
29
31
39
47


8
24
21
23
35


9
20
26
34
42


10

5
34
37


11
22
29
24
27


12
37
26
32
43


13
32
19
15
23


14
20
23
37
41


15
22
10
40
29



















Number of diseased coronaries per allograft













1 ng/kg
10 ng/kg
10 ng/kg


ANIMAL
Control
Serp-1
Serp-1
Serp-1 + d30 + d60














1
3
10
6
2


2

5
3
4


3
8
0
4
6


4
3
3
0
4


5
4
1
4
3


6
4
0
4
8


7
14
5
10
4


8
1
3
2
1


9
4
8
2
7


10

5
6
3


11
13
4
6
4


12
6
10
0
4


13
3
4
5
3


14
7
2
2
5


15
11
2
4
5



















Percentage of diseased coronaries per allograft













1 ng/kg
10 ng/kg
10 ng/kg


ANIMAL
Control
Serp-1
Serp-1
Serp-1 + d30 + d60














1
10.0%
41.7%
23.1%
6.5%


2

18.5%
8.8%
10.5%


3
25.0%
0.0%
15.4%
18.8%


4
10.7%
11.5%
0.0%
9.3%


5
22.2%
4.2%
11.8%
9.1%


6
15.4%
0.0%
10.3%
25.8%


7
48.3%
16.1%
25.6%
8.5%


8
4.2%
14.3%
8.7%
2.9%


9
20.0%
30.8%
5.9%
16.7%


10

100.0%
17.6%
8.1%


11
59.1%
13.8%
25.0%
14.8%


12
16.2%
38.5%
0.0%
9.3%


13
9.4%
21.1%
33.3%
13.0%


14
35.0%
8.7%
5.4%
12.2%


15
50.0%
20.0%
10.0%
17.2%



















Percentage of diseased vessels per group













Non




GROUP
Total
diseased Count
Diseased Count
Percent














Control
340
259
81
23.8%


1 ng/kg
337
275
62
18.4%


Serp-1


10 ng/kg
449
391
58
12.9%


Serp-1


10 ng/kg
532
469
63
11.8%


Serp-1 + d30 + d60









Coadministration of Serp-1 and Neoral® is able to decrease the number of diseased coronary vessels.
EXAMPLE 3
The efficacy of Serp-1 (1 ng/g-10 μg/g) in combination with Cyclosporin A (at doses of 5 mg/kg/day-20 mg/kg/day) for the treatment of acute and chronic transplant rejection were assessed in a heterotopic mouse heart allograft transplant model (FIG. 6).
Details of Animal Surgical protocols:
The heterotopic heart transplant model was performed as previously described. Transplantation 62:1267). Briefly, a median sternotomy was performed in the donor, and the right and left superior vena cave were ligated. The ascending aorta and pulmonary artery of the donor were anastomosed end to side to the recipient aorta and inferior vena cava, respectively.
Acute Rejection Model:
For the acute rejection model, male inbred mice C57BL/6 (H2b) and BALB/c(H2d) were used as the donor and the recipient, respectively. This strain combination was mismatched in both major and minor MHC. We have previously demonstrated that the graft was rejected in 9 days after grafting zhong, et al. (supra).
Criteria for Rejection:
Direct palpation of heart grafts was performed daily. Complete cessation of cardiac impulses was considered as the end point of rejection. The animal was sacrificed and necropsy performed. The following criteria were used for assessing rejection: lymphocytic infiltration, vasculitis, infarction, ischemia, and thrombosis. Animals were followed up until development of end point rejection or sacrifice at 30 days for acute rejection.
Results:
1. Serp-1 alone: no prolongation in graft survival using doses from 1 ng/g Post-operative day (POD 0,2,4 & 7), 10ng/g (POD 0) or 1μg (POD 0-8) (n+4, 1&1).
2. Serp-1 (10 ng/g IV POD 0,2,4&7) + CsA (20 mg/kg) vs CsA alone: significant prolongation of graft survival (36 vs 18.5 days, p<0.05) but hearts not beating strongly (n=4).
3. Serp-1 + CsA (5 mg/kg) vs CsA alone: no prolongation of graft survival (n=4).










Heart Allografts - B6 to BALB/c mice












Graft



Treatment
Dose
Survival (days)
Mean













Serp-1*
1 ng/g IV POD 0, 2, 4 &7
7, 8, 8, 8
7.75



10 ng/g IV POD 0
8
8


Serp-1 +
Serp-1 10 ng/g IV POD
25, 33, 37, >38
>33.3


CsA#
0, 2, 4 &7 CsA 20 mg/kg



IM POD 0-7 then every



other day until day 28


CsA+
CsA 20 mg/kg IM POD 0-7
14, 17, 18, 26
18.5



then every other day



until day 28


None


8









EXAMPLE 4
The efficacy of Serp-1 (100 ng/g) in combination with Cyclosporin A (at doses of 0.25 mg/kg/day - 0.5 mg/kg/day) for the treatment of acute transplant rejection was assessed in a heterotopic rat heart allograft transplant model.
Details of Animal Surgical Protocols:
The heterotopic heart transplant model was performed as described in Example 3.
Acute Rejection Model:
For the acute rejection models, Brown-Norway and Lewis rats were used as the donor and the recipient respectively.
Criteria for Rejection:
Direct palpation of heart allografts was performed daily. Complete cessation of cardiac impulses was considered as the point of rejection. The following criteria were used for assessing rejection: lymphocytic infiltration, vasculitis, infarction, ischemia, and thrombosis. Animals were followed up until development of end point rejection or sacrifice at 30 days for acute rejection.
Results:
1. Cyclosporin A (CsA) alone: no prolongation in graft survival using doses of 0.25 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg, daily (n=8).
2. Serp-1 (100 ng/g IV post operative day 0-10) + CsA (0.5 mg/kg) vs. CsA alone (0.5 mg/kg daily) significant prolongation of graft survival (>73 vs. 33.5 days) (n=8).
3. Serp-1 (100 ng/g IV post-operative day 0-10) + CsA (0.25 mg/kg) vs. CsA alone (0.25 mg/kg, daily): significant prolongation of graft survival (>26.25 vs. 12.88) (n=8).










Heart Allografts - Brown Norway to Lewis Rats










Treatment
Dose
Graft Survival (Days)
Mean













Serp-1 + CsA
Serp-1
13, >36, >36,
>73



100 ng/g IV
49, >110,



POD (0-10),
>111, >112,



CsA 0.5
>112



mg/kg/day


CsA
0.5 mg/kg/day
10, 27, 31,
33.5




31, 32, 42,




44, 51


Serp-1 + CsA
Serp-1
22, 23, 23,
>26.25



100 ng/g IV
24, >28, >29,



POD (0-10),
>31, >31



CsA 0.25



mg/kg/day


CsA
0.25
10, >10, >11,
12.88



mg/kg/day
>11, 14, 15,




15, 17

## Claims

1. A method of improving the transplantation outcome in a mammalian organ transplant recipient, said method comprising administering to said mammalian organ transplant recipient a therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 and one or more immunosuppressive agents, wherein the immunosuppressive agent is an immunosuppressive agent which acts synergistically with SERP-1 to improve the transplantation outcome.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is reduced graft rejection.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein said reduced graft rejection is reduced chronic graft rejection.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein said reduced graft rejection is reduced acute graft rejection.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein said organ transplant is an allograft.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein said organ transplant is a xenograft.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein said mammalian organ transplant recipient is human.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent suppresses T or B cell activity.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein said immunosuppressive agent suppresses T and B cell activity.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein said immunosuppressive agent suppresses T cell activity.

11. The method of claim 8, wherein said immunosuppressive agent suppresses B cell activity.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein said SERP-1 suppresses the activity of an early regulatory inflammatory component.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein said early regulatory inflammatory component is neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, or natural killer (NK) cells.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein said SERP-1 reduces mononuclear cell invasion or transplant vasculopathy.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 is about 1 pg/kg to about 1 g/kg and said therapeutically effective amount of said immunosuppressive agent is about 1 mg/kg to about 20 mg/kg.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 is about 3 μg/kg to about 1 mg/kg.

17. The method of claim 1, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of said immunosuppressive agent is reduced as compared to a therapeutically effective amount of said immunosuppressive agent alone.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is cyclosporin A.

19. The method of claim 1, wherein the immunosuppressive agent is a cyclic peptide produced by the fungus species Tolypocladium Inflatum Gams.

20. The method of claim 19, wherein the immunosuppressive agent is cyclosporin A.

21. The method of claim 1, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is increased graft survival.

22. The method of claim 1, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is decreased lymphocytic infiltration, vasculitis, infarction, ischemia, thrombosis, intimal thickening, glomerular atrophy, glomerular sclerosis, tubular atrophy, hyalinization, interstitial fibrosis, cortical fibrosis, serum creatinine levels, intimal proliferation, hypertrophy, cardiac vessel disease post-transplant, graft intimal hyperplasia, luminal occlusion, or bronchitis obliterans.

23. The method of claim 1, wherein said organ is a kidney.

24. The method of claim 23, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is increased graft survival.

25. The method of claim 23, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is decreased lymphocyte infiltration, intimal thickening, glomerular atrophy, glomerular sclerosis, tubular atrophy, hyalinization, interstitial fibrosis, cortical fibrosis, or serum creatinine levels.

26. The method of claim 1, wherein said organ is a heart.

27. The method of claim 26, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is increased graft survival.

28. The method of claim 26, wherein said improvement in transplantation outcome is decreased intimal proliferation, hypertrophy, cardiac vessel disease post-transplant, graft intimal hyperplasia, or luminal occlusion.

29. The method of claim 1, wherein said SERP-1 and said one or more immunosuppressive agents are co-administered.

30. The method of claim 1, wherein said one or more immunosuppressive agents is administered prior to said SERP-1.

31. The method of claim 1, wherein said SERP-1 or said one or more immunosuppressive agents are administered by parenteral administration.

32. The method of claim 31, wherein said parenteral administration is intravascular, intravenous, intra-arterial, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intraventricular, or intraepidural administration.

33. The method of claim 1, wherein said SERP-1 or said one or more immunosuppressive agents are topically administered.

34. The method of claim 1, wherein said SERP-1 or said one or more immunosuppressive agents are administered in a sustained-release formulation.

35. The method of claim 33, wherein said sustained-release formulation is administered by depot injection or by erodible implant.

36. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is cyclosporin A.

37. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is rapamycin.

38. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is FK501.

39. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is mycophenolate mofetil.

40. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is azathioprine.

41. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is deoxyspergualin.

42. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is FK506.

43. The method of claim 1, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 is about 3 μg/kg to 10 μg/kg.

44. The method of claim 16, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 is 10 μg/kg to 100 μg/kg.

45. The method of claim 16, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 is 100 μg/kg to about 1 mg/kg.

46. The method of claim 1, wherein said therapeutically effective amount of SERP-1 is about 1 pg/kg to about 1 g/kg and said therapeutically effective amount of said immunosuppressive agent is about 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg, wherein said immunosuppressive agent is cyclosporin A.

47. The method of claim 29, wherein said SERP-1 and said one or more immunosuppressive agents are co-administered for a period of about 1 to about 30 days post-transplant.

48. The method of claim 47, wherein said SERP-1 and said one or more immunosuppressive agents are co-administered for a period of about 8 to about 15 days post-transplant.

49. The method of claim 29, wherein said SERP-1 and said one or more immunosuppressive agents are co-administered over a sequential period of days.

50. The method of claim 30, wherein said one or more immunosuppressive agents is administered from about 1 to about 30 days prior to said SERP-1.

51. The method of claim 1, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

52. The method of claim 2, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

53. The method of claim 3, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

54. The method of claim 4, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

55. The method of claim 5, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

56. The method of claim 6, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

57. The method of claim 7, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

58. The method of claim 8, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

59. The method of claim 9, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

60. The method of claim 10, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

61. The method of claim 11, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

62. The method of claim 12, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

63. The method of claim 13, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

64. The method of claim 14, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

65. The method of claim 15, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

66. The method of claim 16, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

67. The method of claim 17, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

68. The method of claim 18, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

69. The method of claim 19, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

70. The method of claim 20, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

71. The method of claim 21, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

72. The method of claim 22, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

73. The method of claim 23, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

74. The method of claim 24, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

75. The method of claim 25, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

76. The method of claim 26, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

77. The method of claim 27, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

78. The method of claim 28, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

79. The method of claim 29, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

80. The method of claim 30, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

81. The method of claim 31, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

82. The method of claim 32, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

83. The method of claim 36, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

84. The method of claim 37, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

85. The method of claim 38, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

86. The method of claim 39, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

87. The method of claim 40, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

88. The method of claim 41, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

89. The method of claim 42, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

90. The method of claim 43, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

91. The method of claim 44, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

92. The method of claim 45, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

93. The method of claim 46, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

94. The method of claim 47, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

95. The method of claim 48, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

96. The method of claim 49, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

97. The method of claim 50, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

98. The method of claim 1, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

99. The method of claim 2, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

100. The method of claim 3, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

101. The method of claim 4, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

102. The method of claim 15, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.

103. The method of claim 36, wherein the amino acid sequence of said SERP-1 consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.