Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients

T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients: a meta-analysis

Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients despite several serious complications including infection, hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence, diabetes mellitus (DM), and hypertension. We attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of T-cell specific antibody induction with complete corticosteroid avoidance. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane central library. Randomized controlled trials comparing T-cell specific antibody induction with corticosteroid induction immunosuppression were included. Our primary outcome was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection. Eleven trials involving 1683 patients were included. The incidence of acute rejection was not significantly different between the antibody and steroid induction groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.01, P = 0.06, I² = 0%). However, T-cell specific antibody induction significantly reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus infection (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33, 0.70, P = 0.0002, I² = 3%), HCV recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80, 0.99, P = 0.03, I² = 0%), DM (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32, 0.54, P < 0.0001, I² = 0%) and hypertension (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55, 0.90, P = 0.005, I² = 35%). Trial sequential analysis for acute rejection showed that the cumulative z-curve did not cross the Trial sequential boundary and the required information size was not reached. T-cell specific antibody induction compared to corticosteroid induction seems to significantly reduce opportunistic infections including cytomegalovirus infection and HCV recurrence and metabolic complications including DM and hypertension. However, given the insufficient study power, low quality of evidence, and heterogeneous immunosuppressive regimens, our results should be cautiously appreciated.

Current status of glucocorticoid usage in solid organ transplantation

Glucocorticoids (GCs) have been the mainstay of immunosuppressive therapy in solid organ transplantation (SOT) for decades, due to their potent effects on innate immunity and tissue protective effects. However, some SOT centers are reluctant to administer GCs long-term because of the various related side effects. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of GCs in SOT. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from 2011 to April 2021 using search syntaxes covering “transplantation” and “glucocorticoids”. GCs are used in transplant recipients, transplant donors, and organ perfusate solution to improve transplant outcomes. In SOT recipients, GCs are administered as induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. GCs are also the cornerstone to treat acute antibody- and T-cell-mediated rejections. Addition of GCs to organ perfusate solution and pretreatment of transplant donors with GCs are recommended by some guidelines and protocols, to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury peri-transplant. GCs with low bioavailability and high potency for GC receptors, such as budesonide, nanoparticle-mediated targeted delivery of GCs to specific organs, and combination use of dexamethasone with inducers of immune-regulatory cells, are new methods of GC application in SOT patients to reduce side effects or induce immune-tolerance instead of immunosuppression. Various side effects involving different non-targeted organs/tissues, such as bone, cardiovascular, neuromuscular, skin and gastrointestinal tract, have been noted for GCs. There are also potential drug-drug interactions for GCs in SOT patients.

Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, a New Player in Reducing Complications From Liver Transplantation?

In response to the global burden of liver disease there has been a commensurate increase in the demand for liver transplantation. However, due to a paucity of donor organs many centers have moved toward the routine use of marginal allografts, which can be associated with a greater risk of complications and poorer clinical outcomes. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) are a multi-potent progenitor cell population that have been utilized to modulate aberrant immune responses in acute and chronic inflammatory conditions. MSC exert an immunomodulatory effect on innate and adaptive immune systems through the release of both paracrine soluble factors and extracellular vesicles. Through these routes MSC can switch the regulatory function of the immune system through effects on macrophages and T regulatory cells enabling a switch of phenotype from injury to restoration. A key benefit seems to be their ability to tailor their response to the inflammatory environment without compromising the host ability to fight infection. With over 200 clinical trials registered to examine MSC therapy in liver disease and an increasing number of trials of MSC therapy in solid organ transplant recipients, there is increasing consideration for their use in liver transplantation. In this review we critically appraise the potential role of MSC therapy in the context of liver transplantation, including their ability to modulate reperfusion injury, their role in the reduction of medium term complications in the biliary tree and their potential to enhance tolerance in transplanted organs.

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Literatura Americano e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Transplant Library until May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed; otherwise we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using 'Risk of bias' domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 completed randomised clinical trials, but only 16 studies with 1347 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Ten of the 16 trials assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). One additional study assessed complete post-operative glucocorticosteroid avoidance but could only be incorporated into qualitative analysis of the results due to limited data published in an abstract. All trials were at high risk of bias. Only eight trials reported on the type of donor used. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; very low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; low-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Post-Liver Transplantation Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Relevance and Approach to Treatment

Post-liver transplantation diabetes mellitus (PLTDM) develops in up to 30% of liver transplant recipients and is associated with increased risk of mortality and multiple morbid outcomes. PLTDM is a multicausal disorder, but the main risk factor is the use of immunosuppressive agents of the calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) family (tacrolimus and cyclosporine). Additional factors, such as pre-transplant overweight, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and hepatitis C virus infection, may further increase risk of developing PLTDM. A diagnosis of PLTDM should be established only after doses of CNI and steroids are stable and the post-operative stress has been overcome. The predominant defect induced by CNI is insulin secretory dysfunction. Plasma glucose control must start immediately after the transplant procedure in order to improve long-term results for both patient and transplant. Among the better known antidiabetics, metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors have a particularly benign profile in the PLTDM context and are the preferred oral agents for long-term management. Insulin therapy is also an effective approach that addresses the prevailing pathophysiological defect of the disorder. There is still insufficient evidence about the impact of newer families of antidiabetics (GLP-1 agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors) on PLTDM. In this review, we summarize current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, course of disease and medical management of PLTDM.

Duplicate publication bias weakens the validity of meta-analysis of immunosuppression after transplantation

Duplicate publication can introduce significant bias into a meta-analysis if studies are inadvertently included more than once. Many studies are published in more than one journal to maximize readership and impact of the study findings. Inclusion of multiple publications of the same study within a meta-analysis affords inappropriate weight to the duplicated data if reports of the same study are not linked together. As studies which have positive findings are more likely to be published in multiple journals this leads to a potential overestimate of the benefits of an intervention. Recent advances in immunosuppression strategies following liver transplantation have led to many studies investigating immunosuppressive regimes including immunosuppression monotherapy. In this letter we focus on a recently published meta-analysis by Lan et al investigating studies assessing immunosuppression monotherapy for liver transplantation. The authors claim to have identified fourteen separate randomised studies investigating immunosuppression monotherapy. Seven of the references appear to relate to only three studies which have been subject to duplicate publication. Several similarities can be identified in each of the duplicate publications including similar authorship, identical immunosuppression regimes, identical dates of enrolment and citation of the original publication in the subsequent manuscripts. We discuss the evidence of the duplicate publication inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Hepatocellular cancer and recurrence after liver transplantation: what about the impact of immunosuppression?

Liver transplantation (LT) has originally been designed to treat hepatobiliary malignancies. The initial results of LT for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) were, however, dismal this mainly due to the poor patient selection procedure. Better surgical and perioperative care and, especially, the refinement of selection criteria led to a major improvement of results, making HCC nowadays (again!) one of the leading indications for LT. This evolution is clearly shown by the innumerable reports aiming to further extend inclusion criteria for LT in HCC patients. Nonetheless, the vast majority of papers only deals with morphologic (tumour diameter and number) and (only recently) biologic (tumour markers and response to locoregional treatment) parameters to do so. Curiously enough, the role of both the immune competent state of the recipient as well as the impact of both immunosuppression (IS) type and load has been very poorly addressed in this context, even if it has been shown for a long time, based on both basic and clinical research, that they all play a key role in the outcome of any oncologic treatment and in the development of de novo as well as recurrent tumours. This chapter aims to give, after a short introductive note about the currently used inclusion criteria of HCC patients for LT and about the role of IS in carcinogenesis, a comprehensive overview of the actual literature related to the impact of different immunosuppressive drugs and schemes on outcome of LT in HCC recipients. Unfortunately, up to now solid conclusions cannot be drawn due to the lack of high-level evidence studies caused by the heterogeneity of the studied patient cohorts and the lack of prospectively designed and randomized studies. Based on long-term personal experience with immunosuppressive handling in LT some proposals for further clinical research and practice are put forward. The strategy of curtailing and minimising IS should be explored in the growing field of transplant oncology taking thereby into account the immunological privilege of the liver allograft. These strategies will become more and more compelling when further extending the indications in which adjuvant chemotherapy will probably become an inherent part of the therapeutic scheme of HCC liver recipients.

Anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies for the prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antibody induction therapy aims at preventing acute cellular rejection by reducing T-cell proliferation and activation. We evaluated the efficacy and side effects of two anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies (IL2RAs), basiliximab and daclizumab, for prevention of liver transplant rejection in adult patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on basiliximab or daclizumab were identified by searching multiple databases and reference lists published up to July, 2015. Endpoints included acute rejection events and mortality rates. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and pooled for a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Patients treated with IL2RA-based therapy were less likely to suffer acute rejection compared to control group (steroid or steroid-free). Patients in all groups had similar mortality rate. In the subgroup analysis, basiliximab and daclizumab-based therapies did not reduced acute rejection rate. No significant difference was found in mortality rate between both types of IL-2RA treatment groups and control groups. In the subgroup analysis regarding experimental design, no significant difference in the acute rejection and mortality rates were found between "steroid plus IL2RA versus steroid" and "IL2RA versus steroid" groups.

CONCLUSION

IL2RA-based induction therapy reduces rate of acute rejection events but does not reduce mortality. However, optimal regimen relating to IL2RA-based induction therapy remains undetermined. KEY MESSAGES IL2RA-based induction therapy was effective in reduction of acute rejection events but it did not reduce mortality rate. Basiliximab-based induction therapy might be more effective than daclizumab-based induction therapy in reduction of acute rejection. No significant difference in acute rejection and mortality rate was found between types of IL2RAs or IL2RA-steroid combined therapy.

Outcomes of Liver Transplant Recipients With Autoimmune Liver Disease Using Long-Term Dual Immunosuppression Regimen Without Corticosteroid

Background

Liver transplant (LT) recipients with autoimmune liver disease (primary sclerosing cholangitis, primary biliary cholangitis, autoimmune hepatitis) are at increased risk of developing acute cellular rejection (ACR), and in many cases graft failure due to recurrent disease. We describe our experience with dual immunosuppression without steroid maintenance and analyze its effect on disease recurrence; ACR; patient and graft survivals; and complications, such as sepsis and de novo malignancy.

Methods

We included 74 consecutive LT recipients (April 2006 to April 2013) with autoimmune liver disease (primary sclerosing cholangitis, 20; primary biliary cholangitis, 23; autoimmune hepatitis, 31) from a single transplant center. Immunosuppression protocol included rabbit antithymocyte globulin for induction and mycophenolate mofetil with tacrolimus or sirolimus/everolimus indefinitely for maintenance.

Results

Overall 1-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year patient survival was 95.9%, 90.4%, 82,2% and 74.9%, re–graft-free survival was 93.2%, 86.3%, 79.9%, and 72.8%, respectively (median follow-up, 5.5 years). In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, sepsis during post-LT period (P = 0.040; hazard ratio [HR], 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-6.11), steroid use for ACR (P = 0.037; HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.06-6.34), and younger age (<40 years) at LT (P = 0.038; HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.05-6.10) predicted graft survival, whereas steroid use for ACR was the only variable that was predictive of overall patient survival (P = 0.004; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.59-10.52). Overall, 34 biopsy-proven ACR was noted in 22 LT recipients (30%), 13 (17.5%) had disease recurrence, and 34 episodes of sepsis occurred in 19 patients.

Conclusions

Dual immunosuppression protocol in LT recipients with autoimmune liver disease without corticosteroid maintenance had acceptable rates of survival and ACR without predisposing patients to the adverse effects of long-term steroid therapy.

Management of Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation outcomes have significantly improved over the past few decades owing largely to the introduction of effective immunosuppression medications. Further comprehension of the unique immune microenvironment of the liver has led to the development of newer molecular targeted therapeutics. Understanding the mechanism of action and adverse effect profiles of these medications is crucial for appropriate management of posttransplant patients. In this review, the author describes the immunologic response elicited by liver transplantation, chronicles the various immunosuppressant drug classes, discusses the evidence behind their use, and evaluates the management of special subpopulations of posttransplantation patients.

Liver Transplantation: the Role of Metabolic Syndrome

OPINION STATEMENT

The long-term survival in liver transplant recipients (LTRs) is currently at an historical high level stemming from improvement in perioperative care, infection control, and immunosuppression medications. However, compared to the general population, LTRs have decreased survival. Metabolic diseases like hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, and obesity are key determinants of long-term mortality in LTRs. The incidence and prevalence of these metabolic comorbidities is considerably higher in LTRs and likely results from a combination of factors including exposure to chronic immunosuppression, weight gain, and recurrence of chronic liver disease after liver transplantation (LT). Although there is currently little guidance in managing these metabolic conditions post-LT, recommendations are often extrapolated from non-transplant cohorts. In the current review, we explore the relationship between metabolic syndrome and its comorbidities in LTRs.

Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As part of liver transplantation, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections resulting from the immune response of the body against transplanted organ or tissues from a different person whose tissue antigens are not compatible with those of the recipient. The optimal maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until October 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on immunosuppression for liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adult participants undergoing liver transplantation (or liver retransplantation) for any reason. We excluded trials in which participants had undergone multivisceral transplantation or participants with established graft rejections. We considered any of the various maintenance immunosuppressive regimens compared with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 26 trials (3842 participants) in the review, and 23 trials (3693 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The vast majority of the participants underwent primary liver transplantation. All of the trials were at high risk of bias, and all of the evidence was of low or very low quality. In addition, because of sparse data involving trials at high risk of bias, it is not possible to entirely rely on the results of the network meta-analysis. The trials included mainly participants undergoing primary liver transplantation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 3 to 144 months. The most common maintenance immunosuppression used as a control was tacrolimus. There was no evidence of difference in mortality (21 trials; 3492 participants) or graft loss (15 trials; 2961 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens based on the network meta-analysis. In the direct comparison, based on a single trial including 222 participants, tacrolimus plus sirolimus had increased mortality (HR 2.76, 95% CrI 1.30 to 6.69) and graft loss (HR 2.34, 95% CrI 1.28 to 4.61) at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (1 trial; 719 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (2 trials; 940 participants), renal impairment (8 trials; 2233 participants), chronic kidney disease (1 trial; 100 participants), graft rejections (any) (16 trials; 2726 participants), and graft rejections requiring treatment (5 trials; 1025 participants) between the different immunosuppressive regimens. The network meta-analysis showed that the number of adverse events was lower with cyclosporine A than with many other immunosuppressive regimens (12 trials; 1748 participants), and the risk of retransplantation (13 trials; 1994 participants) was higher with cyclosporine A than with tacrolimus (HR 3.08, 95% CrI 1.13 to 9.90). None of the trials reported number of serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or costs.

FUNDING

14 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the results of the trial; two trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 10 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-quality evidence from a single small trial from direct comparison, tacrolimus plus sirolimus increases mortality and graft loss at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. Based on very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis, we found no evidence of difference between different immunosuppressive regimens. We found very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis and low-quality evidence from direct comparison that cyclosporine A causes more retransplantation compared with tacrolimus. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid postrandomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft loss, renal impairment, chronic kidney disease, and retransplantation. Such trials should use tacrolimus as one of the control groups. Moreover, such trials ought to be designed in such a way as to ensure low risk of bias and low risks of random errors.