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

Safety and efficacy of early corticosteroid withdrawal in liver transplant recipients: A randomized controlled trial

Backgrounds/Aims

Prolonged use of steroids after liver transplantation (LT) significantly increases the risk of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, which can adversely affect patient outcomes. Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of early steroid withdrawal within the first year following LT.

Methods

This study was conducted as an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Liver transplant recipients were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: Group 1, in which steroids were withdrawn two weeks posttransplantation, and Group 2, in which steroids were withdrawn three months posttransplantation. This study included participants aged 20 to 70 years who were scheduled to undergo a single-organ liver transplant from a living or deceased donor at one of the four participating centers.

Results

Between November 2012 and August 2020, 115 patients were selected and randomized into two groups, with 60 in Group 1 and 55 in Group 2. The incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) was notably higher in Group 1 (32.4%) than in Group 2 (10.0%) in the per-protocol set. Although biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality did not occur, the median tacrolimus trough level/dose/weight in Group 1 exceeded that in Group 2. No significant differences in safety parameters, such as infection and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

The present study did not find a significant reduction in the incidence of NODAT in the early steroid withdrawal group. Our study suggests that steroid withdrawal three months posttransplantation is a standard and safe immunosuppressive strategy for LT patients.

Impact of steroid withdrawal on subclinical graft injury after liver transplantation: A propensity score-matched cohort analysis

Subclinical graft injuries in orthotopic liver transplantation may threaten long-term graft survival and could be the result of chronic under-immunosuppression. It is not known whether steroid withdrawal increases the risk of subclinical immune responses against the graft. This retrospective single-center study aimed to assess the risk of subclinical graft damage after steroid withdrawal within the first nine months after orthotopic liver transplantation in the first three years after transplantation in a prospective cohort of surveillance biopsies using a propensity score matching analysis. Of 355 patients, 109 patients underwent surveillance biopsies between eleven and 36 months after liver transplantation. Thirty-seven patients discontinue steroids within the first nine months and 72 later than nine months after transplantation. The matching led to 28 patients per group. Patients with autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and hepatocarcinoma were excluded by the propensity score matching unintentionally. Patients who discontinued steroids had a trend toward lower levels of immunosuppression at the time of surveillance biopsy. Steroid withdrawal in the first nine months was not associated with an increased risk of subclinical T cell-mediated rejection, graft inflammation, or liver graft fibrosis in the matched cohort with patients with a low frequency of autoimmune liver diseases. There were also no differences in the development of metabolic diseases. In conclusion, steroid withdrawal within the first nine months after transplantation, as assessed by surveillance biopsies, does not increase the risk of subclinical graft injuries or fibrosis at least in liver transplant recipient without or a low prevalence of autoimmune liver diseases.

Safety of Tacrolimus Monotherapy within 12 Months after Liver Transplantation in the Era of Reduced Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil: National Registry Study

Tacrolimus monotherapy is accepted as a feasible option during early post-liver transplantation as per current international consensus guidelines. However, its effects in the recent era of reduced tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) remain unclear. Liver recipients who either received TAC monotherapy from the treatment onset or switched from TAC/MMF to TAC-mono within 12 months (TAC-mono group; n = 991) were chronologically matched to patients who continued to receive TAC/MMF (TAC/MMF group; n = 991) at the corresponding time points on time-conditional propensity scores. Outcomes within 12 months after matched time points were compared. Biopsy-proven rejection (TAC/MMF: 3.5% vs. TAC-mono: 2.6%; p = 0.381) and graft failure (0.2% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.082) were similar in both groups. However, the decline in eGFR was 3.1 mL/min/1.73 m² (95% CI: 0.8–5.3) greater at six months (p = 0.008) and 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m² (95% CI: −0.05–4.9) greater at 12 months (p = 0.048) after the matched time points in TAC-mono group than that in TAC/MMF group. TAC trough levels were also higher in the TAC-mono group throughout the study period. TAC-mono within 12 months after liver transplantation is immunologically safe. However, it can increase the required TAC dose and the decline in renal function than that in TAC/MMF combination therapy.

Comment on: Acute rejection after liver transplantation is less common, but predicts better prognosis in HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma patients

• There is a strong correlation between acute rejection episodes in the postoperative first month and primary etiology that requires liver transplantation. • This difference substantially disappears after the postoperative first month which suggest the effcet of removal of the tumor. • The functional immune status of the patients determines the prognosis following liver transplantation.

pre-existing diabetes and PTDM in kidney transplant recipients: how to handle immunosuppression

INTRODUCTION

Preexisting diabetes (PD) and post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) are common and severe comorbidities posttransplantation. The immunosuppressive regimens are modifiable risk factors.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed Pubmed and Cochrane database and we summarize the mechanisms and impacts of available immunosuppressive treatments on the risk of PD and PTDM. We also assess the possible management of these drugs to improve glycemic parameters while considering risks inherent in transplantation.

EXPERT OPINION

PD i) increases the risk of sepsis, ii) is an independent risk factor for infection-related mortality, and iii) increases acute rejection risk. Regarding PTDM development i) immunosuppressive strategies without corticosteroids significantly reduce the risk but the price may be a higher incidence of rejection; ii) minimization or rapid withdrawal of steroids are two valuable approaches; iii) the diabetogenic role of calcineurin inhibitors(CNIs) is also well-described and is more important for tacrolimus than for cyclosporine. Reducing tacrolimus-exposure may improve glycemic parameters but also has a higher risk of rejection. PTDM risk is higher in patients that receive sirolimus compared to mycophenolate mofetil. Finally, conversion from CNIs to belatacept may offer the best benefits to PTDM-recipients in terms of glycemic parameters, graft and patient-outcomes.

Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction 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 July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 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 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life.

FUNDING

the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.

The Effects of Short-Term Immunosuppressive Therapy on Redox Parameters in the Livers of Pregnant Wistar Rats

Immunosuppressive drugs are widely used to avoid graft rejection, but they are also known to be strongly hepatotoxic. The goal of the current study was to determine: (i) the immunoexpression of SOD1, CAT, GPX1; (ii) the concentration of MDA, GSH; (iii) the activity of SOD, CAT, GPX, in the native liver of a pregnant female rats undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. The study was based on archival material obtained from Department of Nephrology, Transplantology and Internal Medicine of the Independent Public Clinical Hospital No. 2 at the Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Poland. The study was carried out on 32 female rats exposed to oral administration of immunosuppressants two weeks before and during pregnancy. The percentage of SOD1 immunopositive hepatocytes in rats treated with cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, everolimus, and glucocorticosteroid was significantly elevated above that of the control rats. The concentration of MDA in the liver of animals exposed to cyclosporine A, everolimus, and glucocorticosteroid was significantly higher than in other groups. Among the groups of dams treated with immunosuppressive drugs, the highest significant concentration of GSH was found in the livers of rats treated with cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil and glucocorticosteroid. Immunosuppressive therapy during pregnancy affects the oxidoreductive balance in the livers of rats, depending on the regimen used.