A randomized, multicenter study comparing steroid-free immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients with chronic hepatitis C

Post-Liver Transplant Metabolic Syndrome

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the second most frequent cause of liver transplantation following alcoholic liver disease. With longer follow-up and increased survival rates, the occurrence rate of the metabolic syndrome is increasing with time among liver transplant recipients. Reappearances of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease after transplantation, both as recurring cases and new instances, are prevalent; nonetheless, the recurrence of fibrosis is minimal. Recognizing populations at elevated risk and enhancing the management of metabolic-related conditions are crucial for maintaining a healthy transplanted organ, particularly considering the prolonged utilization of immunosuppressive treatments. Furthermore, NASH-related cirrhosis patients who had transplant are at a greater risk of cardiovascular, renal events and increased incidence of cancer, necessitating a unique care strategy. This review discusses post-transplant metabolic syndrome, risk factors, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention strategy, recurrent and de novo NAFLD and customized immunosuppression.

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.

[Update: Immunosuppression in organ transplantation]

Immunosuppression is an essential prerequisite for successful transplantation. In order to reduce the sometimes-considerable side effects, combination therapies with different agents are used. This article aims to provide an up-to-date overview of immunosuppression after liver and kidney transplantation.

Update: Immunsuppression bei Organtransplantationen

Die Immunsuppression ist eine wesentliche Grundvoraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche Transplantation. Zur Reduktion der teils beträchtlichen Nebenwirkungen werden Kombinationstherapien mit unterschiedlichen Wirkstoffen durchgeführt. Dieser Beitrag soll einen aktuellen Überblick zur Immunsuppression nach Leber- und Nierentransplantation geben.

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.

Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis After Liver Transplantation

Currently, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the second leading indication for liver transplantation (LT), behind alcohol-related liver disease. After transplant, both recurrent and de novo nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are common; however, recurrence rates of NASH and advanced fibrosis are low. Identification of high-risk groups and optimizing treatment of metabolic comorbidities both before and after LT is paramount to maintaining a healthy allograft, especially with the additional consequences of longterm immunosuppression. In addition, NASH LT recipients are at an increased risk of cardiovascular events and malignancy, and their condition warrants a tailored approach to management. The optimal approach to NASH LT recipients including metabolic comorbidities management, tailored immunosuppression, the role of bariatric surgery, and nutritional and pharmacotherapy of NASH are discussed in this review. Overall, aggressive management of metabolic syndrome after LT via medical and surgical modalities and a minimalist approach to immunosuppression is advised.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after acute liver allograft rejection treatment: A multicenter European experience

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, several risk factors for the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver transplantation (LT) have been investigated. However, the impact of two important drivers of oncogenesis, namely the immunosuppression and the treatment of acute cellular rejection (ACR) have been marginally addressed. This study aimed at investigating the impact of ACR treatment on the incidence of tumor recurrence in a large European HCC-LT population.

METHODS

Seven hundred and eighty-one adult patients transplanted between February 1, 1985 and June 30, 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. After propensity score match, 116 patients treated for ACR using steroid boluses were compared with 115 patients who did not present any ACR or a histologic but clinical irrelevant ACR.

RESULTS

Steroid boluses treated patients had a 18-fold higher overall incidence of HCC recurrence than those non-treated patients (16.4% vs. 0.9%; P<0.0001). At multivariate Cox regression analysis, steroid boluses used to treat ACR were an independent risk factor for HCC recurrence (HR=14.2; 95% CI: 1.8-110.4; P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to treat ACR as well as to reinforce immunosuppression load should be cautiously taken in view of the presented results. Prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the clinical impact of immunosuppression on HCC recurrence after transplantation.

Steroid-free immunosuppression with low-dose tacrolimus is safe and significantly reduces the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus following liver transplantation

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids (CS) are traditionally used as part of the basal immunosuppression (IS) following liver transplantation (LT) but are known to be associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the incidence of transient as well as persistent NODM, rejection rate and patient- and graft survival between patients receiving steroid-based and steroid-free maintenance IS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 238 patients liver transplanted (2008-2011) with deceased donor livers were divided into two groups, one group that received steroid-based IS (tacrolimus (TAC), corticosteroids (CS), ± mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); n = 155) (2008-2011) and another group of non-autoimmune recipients that received steroid-free IS (TAC, MMF; n = 83) according to our new maintenance IS-protocol starting January 2010. The primary and secondary end-points were patient- and graft survival, rejection rates and the incidence of NODM. The median follow-up times were 1248 days and 681 days, respectively.

RESULTS

The one-year patient- and graft survival in the steroid-based and steroid-free group was 92.7% and 93.3% (ns) and 87.6% and 84.9% (ns), respectively. The incidence of biopsy proven acute rejection (BPAR) was 27.7% in both groups (ns) during follow-up. The overall incidence of persistent NODM in the two groups were 16.8% and 2.9%, respectively (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that steroid-free low-dose tacrolimus-based IS following LT is safe and decreases the incidence of NODM significantly.

Vascularized Thymosternal Composite Tissue Allo- and Xenotransplantation in Nonhuman Primates: Initial Experience

Background:

Vascularized composite allotransplantation is constrained by complications associated with standard immunosuppressive strategies. Vascularized thymus and bone marrow have been shown to promote prolonged graft survival in composite organ and soft-tissue vascularized composite allotransplantation models. We report development of a nonhuman primate vascularized thymosternal composite tissue transplant model as a platform to address donor-specific immune tolerance induction strategies.

Methods:

Vascularized thymosternal allograft (skin, muscle, thymus, sternal bone) was transplanted between MHC-mismatched rhesus monkeys (feasibility studies) and baboons (long-term survival studies), with end-to-side anastomoses of the donor aorta and SVC to the recipient common femoral vessels. A male allograft was transplanted to a female’s lower abdominal wall, and clinically applicable immunosuppression was given. Skin biopsies and immunological assays were completed at regular intervals, and chimerism was quantified using polymerase chain reaction specific for baboon Y chromosome.

Results:

Four allo- and 2 xenotransplants were performed, demonstrating consistent technical feasibility. In 1 baboon thymosternal allograft recipient treated with anti-CD40–based immunosuppression, loss of peripheral blood microchimerism after day 5 was observed and anticipated graft rejection at 13 days. In the second allograft, when cutaneous erythema and ecchymosis with allograft swelling was treated with anti-thymocyte globulin starting on day 6, microchimerism persisted until immunosuppression was reduced after the first month, and the allograft survived to 87 days, 1 month after cessation of immunosuppression treatment.

Conclusions:

We established both allo- and xeno- composite vascularized thymosternal transplant preclinical models, which will be useful to investigate the role of primarily vascularized donor bone marrow and thymus.

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.

Care of the Patient with Liver Failure Requiring Transplantation

Patients undergo liver transplantation to address chronic liver failure, acute fulminant liver failure, or primary liver cancer. Depending on acuity, patients with decompensated chronic or acute fulminant liver failure generally require preoperative intensive care unit admission to manage organ dysfunction. Those with chronic liver failure are allocated an organ based on waiting list position determined by their local organ procurement organization (OPO). This position is dependent upon blood type and Model for End- Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. These patients thus are critically ill and require preoperative ICU monitoring and care. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who require liver transplantation are given a MELD exception and rarely require preoperative ICU care. The patient’s ability to undergo liver transplant in the setting of HCC is determined by the Milan criteria or the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria.

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.

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.

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.

Common issues in the management of patients in the waiting list and after liver transplantation

The present document contains the recommendations of an expert panel of transplant hepatologists, appointed by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), on how to manage the most common aspects of liver transplantation: the topics covered include: new treatments for HCV in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation; antiviral treatments in patients with HCV recurrence after liver transplantation; prophylaxis for HBV recurrence after liver transplantation; indications for liver transplantation in alcoholic liver disease; and Immunosuppressive therapy. The statements on each topic were approved by participants at the AISF Transplant Hepatologist Expert Meeting (organized by the Permanent Committee on Liver Transplantation in Mondello on 4-5 October 2015), and are graded according to the Oxford classification of levels of evidence.

Comprehensive risk assessment for early neurologic complications after liver transplantation

AIM: To determine risk factors for early neurologic complications (NCs) after liver transplantation from perspective of recipient, donor, and surgeon.

METHODS: In all, 295 adult recipients were enrolled consecutively between August 2001 and February 2014 from a single medical center in Taiwan. Any NC in the first 30 d post-liver transplantation, and perioperative variables from multiple perspectives were collected and analyzed. The main outcome was a 30-d NC. Generalized additive models were used to detect the non-linear effect of continuous variables on outcome, and to determine cut-off values for categorizing risk. Risk factors were identified using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS: In all, 288 recipients were included, of whom 142 (49.3%) experienced at least one NC, with encephalopathy being the most common 106 (73%). NCs prolonged hospital stay (35.15 ± 43.80 d vs 20.88 ± 13.58 d, P < 0.001). Liver recipients’ age < 29 or ≥ 60 years, body mass index < 21.6 or > 27.6 kg/m², Child-Pugh class C, history of preoperative hepatoencephalopathy or mental disorders, day 7 tacrolimus level > 8.9 ng/mL, and postoperative intra-abdominal infection were more likely associated with NCs. Novel risk factors for NCs were donor age < 22 or ≥ 40 years, male-to-male gender matching, graft-recipient weight ratio 0.9%-1.9%, and sequence of transplantation between 31 and 174.

CONCLUSION: NCs post- liver transplantation occurs because of factors related to recipient, donor, and surgeon. Our results provide a basis of risk stratification for surgeon to minimize neurotoxic factors during transplantation.

Transplantation With Livers From Deceased Donors Older Than 75 Years

BACKGROUND

The availability of donor organs limits the number of patients in need who are offered liver transplantation. Measures to expand the donor pool are crucial to prevent on-list mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of livers from deceased donors who were older than 75 years.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients who received a first liver transplant (D75 group) from 2001 to 2011 were included. Donor and recipient data were collected from the Nordic Liver Transplant Registry and medical records. The outcome was compared with a control group of 54 patients who received a liver graft from donors aged 20 to 49 years (D20-49 group). Median donor age was 77 years (range, 75-86 years) in the D75 group and 41 years (range, 20-49 years) in the D20-49 group. Median recipient age was 59 years (range, 31-73 years) in the D75 group and 58 years (range, 31-74 years) in the D20-49 group.

RESULTS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient/graft survival values were 87/87%, 81/81%, and 71/67% for the D75 group and 88/87%, 75/73%, and 75/73% for the D20-49 group, respectively. Patient (P = 0.89) and graft (P = 0.79) survival did not differ between groups. The frequency of biliary complications was higher in the D75 group (29.6/13%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Selected livers from donors over age 75 years should not be excluded based on age, which does not compromise patient or graft survival despite a higher frequency of biliary complications.

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 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 Social Sciences Citation Index, The Transplant Library, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2014.

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 the perioperative period and excluding the occurrence 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. 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 16 completed randomised clinical trials with a total of 1347 participants. We found 10 trials that assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use and treatment of rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). We found one ongoing trial assessing complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, which is expected to enrol 300 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. 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 1.16, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.48; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; 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; moderate-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.

Steroid minimization immunosuppression protocol using basiliximab in adult living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis

AIM

Recent randomized trials have failed to prove the benefit of steroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on the use of basiliximab in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This pilot study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a steroid minimization protocol using basiliximab compared with standard immunosuppression.

METHODS

A single center, prospective cohort analysis was conducted to compare two immunosuppression regimens in adult recipients who underwent LDLT for HCV since 2004: calcineurin inhibitor/mizoribine/basiliximab (the St- group) and calcineurin inhibitor/mizoribine/steroid (the St+ group). Study end-points were rejection rates, recurrent HCV, patient survival and other adverse events up to 2 years after transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 27 consecutive patients were enrolled. Transplantation characteristics were similar between the two groups (14 St- and 13 St+) except ABO incompatible cases being more common in the St+ group. Rejection rates, recurrent HCV, patient survival, fibrosis stage and new-onset diabetes mellitus at 2 years were comparable between the two groups. ABO incompatibility did not affect short- and long-term outcomes. Nine St- and seven St+ recipients underwent interferon and ribavirin therapy for recurrent HCV, with a sustained virological response rate of 33% and 29%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A steroid minimization protocol with basiliximab in adult LDLT for HCV is safe and affords equivalent rejection rates compared with standard immunosuppression. However, no significant differences are observed with respect to recurrent HCV, patient survival and metabolic complications.

Critical Care of the Liver Transplant Recipient

Patient survival following orthotopic liver transplantation has greatly increased following improvements in surgical technique, anesthetic care, and immunosuppression. The critical care of the liver transplant recipient has paralleled these improvements, largely thanks to input from multidisciplinary teams and institution-specific protocols guiding management and care. This article provides an overview of the approach to critical care of the postoperative adult liver transplant recipient outlining common issues faced by the intensivist. Approaches to extubation and hemodynamic assessment are described. The provision of appropriate immunosuppression, infection prophylaxis, and nutrition is addressed. To aid prompt diagnosis and treatment, intensivists must be aware of postoperative complications of bleeding, primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, vascular thromboses, biliary complications, rejection, and organ dysfunction.

Early coupled up-regulation of interleukin-12 receptor beta-1 in CD8+ central memory and effector T cells for better clinical outcomes in liver transplant recipients

This study aimed to investigate the role of initial priming of interleukin (IL)-12 receptor beta-1 in CD8(+) central memory T cells (initial IL-12RTCM priming) and CCR7-negative subsets (CNS) in effector cell expansion and clinical outcome after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). One hundred and six patients who underwent LDLT were classified into the following three groups according to hierarchical clustering of CD8(+) CD45 isoforms before LDLT: I, naive-dominant; II, effector memory-dominant; and III, effector-dominant. The pre-existing CD8(+) effector cells (TE ) and activated immune status increased progressively from group I to group II to group III. Groups I, II and III received tacrolimus (Tac)/glucocorticoid (GC) regimens. Eighteen group III recipients received Tac/mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and were defined as group IV. Initial IL-12RTCM priming was slightly, moderately and markedly decreased in droups I, II, and III, respectively. Initial priming of IL-12Rβ1 in CNS was decreased markedly in the three groups with marked decreases of TE , perforin and interferon (IFN)-γ; all parameters were restored by up-regulation of IL-12Rβ1(+) TCM through the self-renewal of TCM . The lag time required until coupled up-regulation of IL-12Rβ1 of TCM and CNS to above baseline was 12, 20 and 32 days in groups I, II and III, respectively. Inferior clinical outcomes were associated with increasing lag time. In contrast, the initial priming of IL-12Rβ1 in TCM and CNS remained above baseline in group IV due to MMF-mediated increase of IL-12Rβ1. Early coupled up-regulation of TCM and CNS leads to efficient TE differentiation and optimal clinical outcomes.

Prednisolone does not affect direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C, but inhibits interferon-alpha production by plasmacytoid dendritic cells

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection compromises long-term outcomes of liver transplantation. Although glucocorticosteroid-based immunosuppression is commonly used, discussion is ongoing on the effect of prednisolone (Pred) on HCV recurrence and response to antiviral therapy post transplantation. Recently, new drugs (direct-acting antivirals) have been approved for the treatment of HCV, however, it remains unknown whether their antiviral activity is affected by Pred. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Pred on the antiviral activity of asunaprevir (Asu), daclatasvir (Dac), ribavirin (RBV), and interferon-alpha (IFN-α), and on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (PDCs), the main IFN-α-producing immune cells.

METHODS

The effects of Pred and antiviral compounds were tested in both a subgenomic and infectious HCV replication model. Furthermore, effects were tested on human PDCs stimulated with a Toll-like receptor-7 ligand.

RESULT

Pred did not directly affect HCV replication and did not inhibit the antiviral action of Asu, Dac, RBV, or IFN-α. Stimulated PDCs potently suppressed HCV replication. This suppression was reversed by treating PDCs with Pred. Pred significantly decreased IFN-α production by PDCs without affecting cell viability. When Asu and Dac were combined with PDCs, a significant cooperative antiviral effect was observed.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that Pred acts on the antiviral function of PDCs. Pred does not affect the antiviral action of Asu, Dac, RBV, or IFN-α. This implies that there is no contraindication to combine antiviral therapies with Pred in the post-transplantation management of HCV recurrence.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis C in liver transplant candidates and recipients: Where do we stand?

The first generation direct antiviral agents (DAAs) highlighted substantial prognosis improvement among liver transplant (LT) candidates and recipients with recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. During 2014, second generation DAAs are associated with high sustained virological response rates (> 95%), shortened duration courses and relatively few toxicities. In keeping with the currently available data, patients with decompensated cirrhosis awaiting LT is preferable to be treated with interferon-free, new generation DAAs, with or without ribavirin combinations. Although data about the safety of new DAAs combinations in this patient population are limited, sofosbuvir and daclatasvir pharmacokinetics do not appear to change significantly in moderate or severe liver impairment, while other new DAAs (simeprevir, asunaprevir) seem to be contraindicated in patients with severe liver impairment (Child-Pugh class C). On the other hand, sofosbuvir should not be given in patients with glomerular filtration rate ≤ 30 mL/min, but ongoing trials will clarify better this issue. With the objective that newer antiviral combinations will yield safer and more efficient manipulation of HCV recurrence post-transplant, the European Association for the Study of the Liver has recently updated its recommendations towards this direction. Nevertheless the new antivirals' high cost may be the biggest challenge to their implementation worldwide.

Review on immunosuppression in liver transplantation

The optimal level of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation, in particular for the liver, is a delicate balance between the benefit of preventing rejection and the adverse side effects of immunosuppression. There is uncertainty about when this level is achieved in any individual recipient. Immunosuppression regimens vary between individual centers and changes with time as new agents and data are available. Presently concerns about the adverse side effects of calcineurin inhibitor, the main class of immunosuppressive agents used in liver transplantation (LT), has led to consideration of the use of antibody induction therapies for patients at higher risk of developing adverse side effects. The longevity of the transplanted organ is potentially improved by better management of rejection episodes and special consideration for tailoring of immunosuppression to the individual with viral hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma or pregnancy. This review provides an overview of the current strategies for post LT immunosuppression and discusses modifications to consider for special patient populations.

From immunosuppression to tolerance

The past three decades have seen liver transplantation becoming a major therapeutic approach in the management of end-stage liver diseases. This is due to the dramatic improvement in survival after liver transplantation as a consequence of the improvement of surgical and anaesthetic techniques, of post-transplant medico-surgical management and of prevention of disease recurrence and other post-transplant complications. Improved use of post-transplant immunosuppression to prevent acute and chronic rejection is a major factor in these improved results. The liver has been shown to be more tolerogenic than other organs, and matching of donor and recipients is mainly limited to ABO blood group compatibility. However, long-term immunosuppression is required to avoid severe acute and chronic rejection and graft loss. With the current immunosuppression protocols, the risk of acute rejection requiring additional therapy is 10-40% and the risk of chronic rejection is below 5%. However, the development of histological lesions in the graft in long-term survivors suggest atypical forms of graft rejection may develop as a consequence of under-immunosuppression. The backbone of immunosuppression remains calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) mostly in association with steroids in the short-term and mycophenolate mofetil or mTOR inhibitors (everolimus). The occurrence of post-transplant complications related to the immunosuppressive therapy has led to the development of new protocols aimed at protecting renal function and preventing the development of de novo cancer and of dysmetabolic syndrome. However, there is no new class of immunosuppressive drugs in the pipeline able to replace current protocols in the near future. The aim of a full immune tolerance of the graft is rarely achieved since only 20% of selected patients can be weaned successfully off immunosuppression. In the future, immunosuppression will probably be more case oriented aiming to protect the graft from rejection and at reducing the risk of disease recurrence and complications related to immunosuppressive therapy. Such approaches will include strategies aiming to promote stable long-term immunological tolerance of the liver graft.

Management of post transplant hepatitis C in the direct antiviral agents era

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the main indications for liver transplantation. Viral recurrence occurs in all patients with detectable serum HCV RNA at the time of transplantation leading to cirrhosis in 20-30% of patients within 5 years. Viral eradication using antiviral therapy has been shown to improve patient and graft survival. Pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) antiviral therapy achieved SVR in around 30% of transplant recipients. In the non-transplant setting, first generation NS3/4 protease inhibitors, boceprevir or telaprevir associated with PEG-IFN and RBV, has improved the SVR rates to 75% in genotype 1 infected patients. However, tolerability and drug-drug interactions with calcineurin inhibitors are both limiting factors of their use in transplant recipients. In the non-transplant patients, using new direct-acting antiviral therapy has dramatically improved the efficacy of antiviral C therapy over recent years leading to SVR rates over 90% in phase II and III clinical trials, without PEG-IFN and/or RBV. Preliminary results in transplant patients showed better efficacy, better tolerability and less drug-drug interactions.

Comprehensive comparison of three different immunosuppressive regimens for liver transplant patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: steroid-free immunosuppression, induction immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression

The different choices of immunosuppression (IS) regimens influenced the outcomes of liver transplantation. Steroid was applied as a standard IS to prevent and treat rejections. However, steroid-related complications were increasingly prominent. This study compared the efficacy and safety of standard IS regimens with the efficacy and safety of steroid-free IS regimen and induction IS regimen in Chinese liver transplantation recipients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 329 patients who underwent liver transplantation from January 2008 to December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Three different groups of patients received standard triple-drug IS regimen of steroid, tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (triple-drug regimen group; n=57), induction-contained IS regimen of basiliximab, steroid, TAC and MMF (BS group; n=241), and induction-contained and steroid-free regimen of basiliximab, TAC and MMF (SF group; n=31), respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates. The acute rejection rate and rejection time were equivalent in different groups. But compared with BS group, higher incidences of biliary complications (11.52% vs. 30.77%, p=0.013) and graft dysfunction (0.48% vs. 13.64%, p=0.003) were observed in SF group. Furthermore, compared with the two groups, incidence of pleural effusion was also higher in SF group (15.79%, 11.96% vs. 45.45%, respectively, both p<0.01). And a trend towards less proportion of De novo diabetes was revealed in SF group. Although it was found that patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates were equivalent among three IS regimens, higher incidences of complications were demonstrated in steroid-free regimen in patients for HCC. These findings suggested that steroid-free IS regimen has no clear advantages in comparison with standard IS regimens for liver transplant recipients with HCC and the postoperative complications should be treated with concentrated attention.

A retrospective 15-year review: survival advantage after switching to sirolimus in hepatitis C virus infected liver graft recipients

BACKGROUND

The use of sirolimus-based immune suppression in liver transplantation, particularly in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected recipients, remains contentious. There is some evidence that sirolimus retards hepatic fibrosis, is renal sparing and may be of benefit in preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. Sirolimus has not been adopted by many transplant centres because of persistent concerns regarding an increased risk of hepatic artery thrombosis, graft loss and death with de novo sirolimus.

AIM

To review the impact of switching to sirolimus monotherapy in HCV-infected liver recipients with respect to survival, graft loss and hepatic fibrosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 190 patients from a single centre undergoing first liver transplantation for HCV over 15 years. 113 patients were switched from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based therapy to low-dose sirolimus monotherapy at a median of 15 months after transplantation for HCV-related fibrosis (72%), renal impairment (14%) or high-risk HCC (5%).

RESULTS

Patients switched to sirolimus had improved survival (P < 0.001) and slower progression to cirrhosis (P = 0.001). In patients with HCC (n = 91), sirolimus duration rather than strategy was an independent predictor of survival (P = 0.001) and extended time to HCC recurrence (33 vs. 16 months). Patients switched for renal dysfunction showed improvement in serum creatinine (140-108 μmol/L, P = 0.001). Those remaining on CNI-therapy were more likely to develop post-transplant diabetes (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest selective switching to low-dose sirolimus monotherapy in HCV-positive liver recipients improves clinical outcome.

Is there such a thing as protocol immunosuppression in liver transplantation?

Protocol immunosuppression in liver transplantation is largely an outdated concept. Immunosuppression is now personalized to the individual patient on the basis of several factors including underlying etiology of original liver disease (e.g., HCV, hepatocellular carcinoma), renal function, metabolic co-morbidities and the patient's immunological state. These include omission of corticosteroids in HCV infection and those with major metabolic risk factors, the minimization of calcineurin inhibitors in the presence of renal dysfunction and the use of mTOR inhibitors in patients with malignancy. The basis for such decision-making is discussed in this editorial.

Post-liver transplant hepatitis C virus recurrence: an unresolved thorny problem

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis represents the leading cause of liver transplantation in developed, Western and Eastern countries. Unfortunately, liver transplantation does not cure recipient HCV infection: reinfection universally occurs and disease progression is faster after liver transplant. In this review we focus on what happens throughout the peri-transplant phase and in the first 6-12 mo after transplantation: during this crucial period a completely new balance between HCV, liver graft, the recipient's immune response and anti-rejection therapy is achieved that will deeply affect subsequent outcomes. Nearly all patients show an early graft reinfection, with HCV viremia reaching and exceeding pre-transplant levels; in this setting, histological assessment is essential to differentiate recurrent hepatitis C from acute or chronic rejection; however, differentiating the two patterns remains difficult. The host immune response (mainly cellular mediated) appears to be crucial both in the control of HCV infection and in the genesis of rejection, and it is also strongly influenced by immunosuppressive treatment. At present no clear immunosuppressive strategy could be strongly recommended in HCV-positive recipients to prevent HCV recurrence, even immunotherapy appears to be ineffective. Nonetheless it seems reasonable that episodes of rejection and over-immunosuppression are more likely to enhance the risk of HCV recurrence through immunological mechanisms. Both complete prevention of rejection and optimization of immunosuppression should represent the main goals towards reducing the rate of graft HCV reinfection. In conclusion, post-transplant HCV recurrence remains an unresolved, thorny problem because many factors remain obscure and need to be better determined.

Natural history, treatment and prevention of hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: Past, present and future

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma is the main indication for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide. Post-transplant HCV re-infection is almost universal and results in accelerated progression from acute hepatitis to chronic hepatitis, and liver cirrhosis. Comprehension and treatment of recurrent HCV infection after LT have been major issues for all transplant hepatologists and transplant surgeons for the last decades. The aim of this paper is to review the evolution of our knowledge on the natural history of HCV recurrence after LT, including risk factors for disease progression, and antiviral therapy. We will focus our attention on possible ways (present and future) to improve the final long-term results of LT for HCV-related liver disease.

Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: An evidence-based review

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and two meta-analyses were reviewed. With respect to adult patients undergoing first orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), steroid replacement resulted in fewer cases of overall acute rejection in the corticosteroid free-immunosuppression arm. Initial steroid administration for two weeks and early tacrolimus monotherapy is a feasible immunosuppression regimen without steroid replacement, although further investigations are needed in view of chronic rejections. No significant differences were noted between the treatment groups in terms of patient and graft survival independently of steroid replacement. Renal insufficiency, de novo hypertension, neurological disorders and infectious complications did not differ significantly among steroid and steroid-free groups. Diabetes mellitus, cholesterol levels and cytomegalovirus infection are more frequent in patients within the steroid group. With respect to diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia, the difference was independent of steroid replacement. In relation to transplanted hepatitis C virus patients, mycophenolate mofetil does not appear to have a significant antiviral effect despite early reports. Male gender of donors and recipients, living donors, cold ischemia times, acute rejection, and early histological recurrence were related to the development of advanced hepatitis. There is sufficient scientific clinical evidence advocating avoidance of the ab initio use of steroids in OLT.

Improving long-term outcomes after liver transplantation

Long-term survival following liver transplantation is profoundly affected by conditions unrelated to graft function. Many causes of mortality are contributed to by the metabolic syndrome. The approach to metabolic syndrome in liver transplant recipients requires consideration of transplant-specific factors, particularly immunosuppression. Enhancing long-term outcomes for liver transplant recipients necessitates minimizing the amount of immunosuppression required to prevent rejection. Studies to determine the optimal approach to minimize the impact of metabolic syndrome and complications of immunosuppression in transplant recipients are needed.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Reduced fibrosis in recurrent HCV with tacrolimus, azathioprine and steroids versus tacrolimus: randomised trial long term outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Early results of a randomised trial showed reduced fibrosis due to recurrent HCV hepatitis with tacrolimus triple therapy (TT) versus monotherapy (MT) following transplantation for HCV cirrhosis. We evaluated the clinical outcomes after a median 8 years of follow-up, including differences in fibrosis assessed by collagen proportionate area (CPA).

DESIGN

103 consecutive liver transplant recipients with HCV cirrhosis receiving cadaveric grafts were randomised to tacrolimus MT (n=54) or TT (n=49) with daily tacrolimus (0.1 mg/kg divided dose), azathioprine (1 mg/kg) and prednisolone (20 mg), the last tailing off to zero by 6 months. Both groups had serial transjugular biopsies with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement. Time to reach Ishak stage 4 was the predetermined endpoint. CPA was measured in all biopsies. Factors associated with HCV recurrence were evaluated. Clinical decompensation was the first occurrence of ascites/hydrothorax, variceal bleeding or encephalopathy.

RESULTS

No significant preoperative, peri-operative or postoperative differences between groups were found. During 96 months median follow-up, stage 4 fibrosis was reached in 19 MT/11 TT with slower fibrosis progression in TT (p=0.009). CPA at last biopsy was 12% in MT and 8% in TT patients (p=0.004). 14 MT/ three TT patients reached HVPG≥10 mm Hg (p=0.002); 10 MT/three TT patients, decompensated. Multivariately, allocated MT (p=0.047, OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 10.3) was independently associated with decompensation: 14 MT/ seven TT died, and five MT/ four TT were retransplanted.

CONCLUSIONS

Long term immunosuppression with tacrolimus, azathioprine and short term prednisolone in HCV cirrhosis recipients resulted in slower progression to severe fibrosis assessed by Ishak stage and CPA, less portal hypertension and decompensation, compared with tacrolimus alone. ISRCTN94834276--Randomised study for immunosuppression regimen in liver transplantation.

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Current strategies for immunosuppression following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

New strategies for immunosuppression (IS) after liver transplantation (LTx) are in part responsible for the increased patient and graft survival seen over time. With a few basic exceptions-notably the continued use of steroids and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs)-IS drugs and regimens being used today are different from those used 30 years ago. While graft loss due to acute or chronic rejection has become rare, the side effect burden of IS drugs exerts a significant toll on patients.

CONCEPTS/TRENDS

CNIs continue to form the backbone of IS regimens, although their use is hampered by nephrotoxicity and other adverse effects. Consequently, a variety of CNI reduction or withdrawal strategies have formed the basis of clinical trials or entered into clinical practice. These trials have included the use of everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, and anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies. Basiliximab, as well as other lymphocyte nondepleting and depleting agents, have shown benefit in induction regimens.

SUMMARY

Along with steroid reduction or elimination, current strategies for IS after LTx continue to explore novel combinations of agents, with an aim toward striking a balance between diminution of rejection and the need for avoiding adverse effects of the IS drugs. Long-term maintenance strategies are also discussed in this review, as is development of tolerance and antibody-mediated rejection.

Challenges of recurrent hepatitis C in the liver transplant patient

Cirrhosis secondary to hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a very common indication for liver transplant. Unfortunately recurrence of HCV is almost universal in patients who are viremic at the time of transplant. The progression of fibrosis has been shown to be more rapid in the post-transplant patients than in the transplant naïve, hence treatment of recurrent HCV needs to be considered for all patients with documented recurrent HCV. Management of recurrent HCV is a challenging situation both for patients and physicians due to multiple reasons as discussed in this review. The standard HCV treatment with pegylated interferon and Ribavarin can be considered in these patients but it leads to a lower rate of sustained virologic clearance than in the non-transplanted population. Some of the main challenges associated with treating recurrent HCV in post-transplant patients include the presence of cytopenias; need to monitor drug-drug interactions and the increased incidence of renal compromise. In spite of these obstacles all patients with recurrent HCV should be considered for treatment since it is associated with improvement in survival and a delay in fibrosis progression. With the arrival of direct acting antiviral drugs there is renewed hope for better outcomes in the treatment of post-transplant HCV recurrence. This review evaluates current literature on this topic and identifies challenges associated with the management of post-transplant HCV recurrence.

Role of steroid minimization in the tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen for liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early steroid withdrawal or steroid avoidance in the tacrolimus (Tac)-based immunosuppressive regimen for liver transplant recipients. According to the requirements of the Cochrane systematic review, a thorough literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane electronic databases between 1995 and 2011 using the key words "liver transplantation," "Tac," and "steroid free" or "steroid withdrawal," restricting articles to the English language. Data were processed for a meta-analysis by Stata 12 software. Altogether 17 prospective randomized controlled trials containing 1,980 transplanted patients were included in this study. The overall pooled RR estimates of 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were 0.985, 0.998, 0.995, and 1.100 (95 % CI 0.925-1.048, 0.934-1.067, 0.894-1.107, and 0.968-1.250, respectively), as well as 0.998, 0.993, 0.945, and 1.053, respectively (95 % CI 0.928-1.072, 0.902-1.092, 0.833-1.072, and 0.849-1.307, respectively). The other pooled RR estimates of acute rejection and chronic rejection rates for all enrolled studies were 1.077 and 0.311 (95 % CI 0.864-1.343 and 0.003-37.207). As for secondary predictors, the pooled RR estimates such as HCV recurrence, HCC recurrence, diabetes, hypertension, kidney dysfunction, bacterial infection, and CMV were 1.101, 1.403, 1.836, 1.607, 0.842, 1.096, and 2.280, respectively (95 % CI 0.964-1.257, 0.422-4.688, 1.294-2.606, 0.926-1.228, 0.693-1.022, 0.783-1.533, and 1.500-3.465, respectively). There were no differences between the steroid group and steroid-free group for all clinical observational indices except for the incidence of diabetes (p = 0.001) and CMV infection (p < 0.001). In summary, our study indicate that rapid discontinuation of steroid in the Tac-based immunosuppressive regimen may not lead to an increased risk of morbidity and rejection rate.

Excessive immunosuppression as a potential cause of poor survival in simultaneous liver/kidney transplantation for hepatitis C

Appropriate recipient selection of simultaneous liver/kidney transplantation (SLKT) remains controversial. In particular, data on liver graft survival in hepatitis C virus-infected (HCV+) SLKT recipients are lacking. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of HCV+ SLKT recipients (N = 25) in comparison with HCV- SLKT (N = 26) and HCV+ liver transplantation alone (LTA, N = 296). Despite backgrounds of HCV+ and HCV- SLKT being similar, HCV+ SLKT demonstrated significantly impaired 5-year liver graft survival of 35% (HCV- SLKT, 79%, P = 0.004). Compared with HCV+ LTA, induction immunosuppression was more frequently used in HCV+ SLKT. Five-year liver graft survival rate for HCV+ SLKT was significantly lower than that for LTA (35% vs. 74%, respectively, P < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratio of liver graft loss in HCV+ SLKT was 4.9 (95% confidence interval 2.0-12.1, P = 0.001). HCV+ SLKT recipients were more likely to succumb to recurrent HCV and sepsis compared with LTA (32% vs. 8.8%, P < 0.001 and 24% vs. 8.8%, P = 0.030, respectively). Ten HCV+ SLKT recipients underwent anti-HCV therapy for recurrent HCV; only 1 achieved sustained virological response. HCV+ SLKT is associated with significantly decreased long-term prognosis compared with HCV- SLKT and HCV+ LTA.

REFINE: a randomized trial comparing cyclosporine A and tacrolimus on fibrosis after liver transplantation for hepatitis C

REFINE was a 12-month, prospective, open-label study in 356 patients receiving de novo liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis, randomized to cyclosporine A (CsA) or tacrolimus with (i) no steroids, IL-2 receptor antibody induction and mycophenolic acid, or (ii) slow steroid tapering. The primary analysis population based on availability of liver biopsies comprised 165 patients (88 CsA, 77 tacrolimus). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, fibrosis stage ≥2 at 12 months, which occurred in 63/88 CsA-treated patients (71.6%) and 52/77 tacrolimus-treated patients (67.5%) (odds ratio [OR] 1.11; 95% CI 0.56, 2.21; p = 0.759). Similarly, no significant between-group difference occurred at month 24 (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.47, 2.80; p = 0.767). Among steroid-free patients, fibrosis score ≥2 was significantly less frequent with CsA versus tacrolimus at month 12 (7/37 [18.9%] vs. 16/38 [42.1%]; p = 0.029). HCV viral load was similar in both the tacrolimus- and CsA-treated cohorts. Mean blood glucose was significantly higher with tacrolimus from day 15 onward. Biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss and death were similar. These results showed no differences in posttransplant HCV-induced liver fibrosis between patients treated with CsA or tacrolimus in steroid-containing regimens, whereas CsA in steroid-free protocols was associated with reduced severity of fibrosis progression at 1 year posttransplant.

Predictors of disease recurrence post living donor liver transplantation in end stage chronic HCV patients

HCV recurrence represents a universal phenomenon after liver transplantation. In this study Fifty HCV patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation were enrolled and factors that may accelerate HCV reinfection of the allograft such as donor's age and degree of liver steatosis, recipient's age, gender, BMI, MELD score, liver functions, HCV viral load, type of immunosuppressive drug, and genetic polymorphisms of IL28B, OAS, and IL1B were studied. The results of disease-free survival (DFS) rates showed inverse correlation with the recipient's postoperative levels of ALT, AST, ALP (P < 0.001, <0.001, and 0.006 resp.) as well as pre- and postoperative titers of HCV RNA (P < 0.003 and <0.001 resp.). Recipient's IL28B SNP was a significant factor in predicting postoperative DFS (P < 0.025). However, SNPs in OAS and IL1B genes had no apparent correlation with DFS. Cox proportional hazards model revealed that patients with elevated levels of ALT, preoperative viral titers, IL28B CT, and IL28B TT were 8.28, 4.22, 3.35, and 1.36 times, respectively, more likely to develop recurrence. In conclusion IL28B SNP, ALT level, and preoperative HCV titer besides proper choice of immunosuppressant are helpful for predicting posttransplant HCV recurrence and DFS.

Management of HCV transplant patients with triple therapy

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the leading causes of end-stage liver disease and the main indication for liver transplantation (LT) in most countries. All patients who undergo LT with detectable serum HCV RNA experience graft reinfection. Between 20 and 30% of patients have developed cirrhosis at 5 years post-LT. The outcome of transplant patients with cirrhosis on the graft is severe, with a rate of decompensation at 1 year of approximately 40%. To date, retransplantation is the only option in patients with decompensated liver disease. Until 2011, standard antiviral therapy with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV), was the only effective therapy. Obtaining a sustained virological response (SVR) in patients with LT greatly improves overall and graft survival but this only occurs in 30% of transplanted patients. Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) such as protease inhibitors (PI), polymerase or other non-structural proteins inhibitors represent a new era in HCV associated liver disease. Although their use in the field of LT will certainly be essential there are some limitations because of safety and tolerance. One limitation is the potential interaction with calcineurin inhibitors. We describe the results of triple therapy with boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR) for efficacy and safety and comment on future therapeutic strategies in liver transplant recipients.