Hepatic retransplant: what have we learned?

Immunosuppression in adult liver transplant recipients: a 2024 update from the Italian Liver Transplant Working Group

PURPOSE

Advances in surgical procedures and immunosuppressive therapies have considerably improved the outcomes of patients who have undergone liver transplantation in the past few decades. In 2020, the Italian Liver Transplant Working Group published practice-oriented algorithms for immunosuppressive therapy (IT) in adult liver transplant (LT) recipients. Due to the rapidly evolving LT field, regular updates to the recommendations are required. This review presents a consensus- and evidence-based update of the 2020 recommendations.

METHODS

The Italian Liver Transplant Working Group set out to address new IT issues, which were discussed based on supporting literature and the specialists' personal experiences. The panel deliberated on and graded each statement before consensus was reached.

RESULTS

A series of consensus statements were formulated and finalized on: (i) oncologic indications for LT; (ii) management of chronic LT rejection; (iii) combined liver-kidney transplantation; (iv) immunosuppression for transplantation with an organ donated after circulatory death; (v) transplantation in the presence of frailty and sarcopenia; and (vi) ABO blood group incompatibility between donor and recipient. Algorithms were updated in the following LT groups: standard patients, critical patients, oncology patients, patients with specific etiology, and patients at high immunologic risk. A steroid-free approach was generally recommended, except for patients with autoimmune liver disease and those at high immunologic risk.

CONCLUSION

The updated consensus- and evidence-based 2024 recommendations for immunosuppression regimens in adult patients with ABO-compatible LT address a range of clinical variables that should be considered to optimize the choice of the immunosuppression treatment in clinical practice in Italy.

An updated analysis of retransplantation following living donor liver transplantation in the United States: Insights from the latest UNOS database

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

Trajectories of patients relisted for liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Recurrent cirrhosis complicates 10-30% of Liver transplants (LT) and can lead to consideration for re-transplantation. We evaluated the trajectories of relisted versus primary listed patients on the waitlist using a competing risk framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 1,912 patients listed for LT at our centre between from 2012 to 2020. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess overall survival (OS) by listing type and competing risk analysis Fine-Gray models were used to assess cumulative incidence of transplant by listing type.

RESULTS

1,731 patients were included (104 relisted). 44.2% of relisted patients received exception points vs. 19.8% of primary listed patients (p<0.001). Patients relisted without exceptions, representing those with graft cirrhosis, had the worst OS (HR: 4.17, 95%CI 2.63 - 6.67, p=<0.0001) and lowest instantaneous rate of transplant (HR: 0.56, 95%CI 0.38 - 0.83, p=0.006) than primary listed with exception points. On multivariate analysis listing type, height, bilirubin and INR were associated with cumulative incidence of transplant, while listing type, bilirubin, INR, sodium, creatinine were associated with OS. Within relisted patients, there was a trend towards higher mortality (HR: 1.79, 95%CI 0.91 - 3.52, p=0.08) and low transplant incidence (HR: 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 - 1.15, p=0.07) for graft cirrhosis vs other relisting indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients relisted for LT are carefully curated and comprise a minority of the waitlist population. Despite their younger age, they have worse liver/kidney function, poor waitlist survival, and decreased transplant incidence suggesting the need for early relisting, while considering standardized exception points.

Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signs of Chronic Liver Rejection: A Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

In liver transplantation, chronic rejection is still poorly studied. This study aimed to investigate the role of imaging in its recognition.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective observational case-control series. Patients with histologic diagnosis of chronic liver transplant rejection were selected; the last imaging examination (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) before the diagnosis was evaluated. At least 3 controls were selected for each case; radiological signs indicative of altered liver function were analyzed. χ 2 Test with Yates correction was used to compare the rates of radiologic signs in the case and control groups, also considering whether patients suffered chronic rejection within or after 12 months. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.050.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included in the study (27 in the case group and 91 in the control group). Periportal edema was appreciable in 19 of 27 cases (70%) and in 6 of 91 controls (4%) ( P < 0.001); ascites and hepatomegaly were present in 14 of 27 cases (52%) and 12 of 27 cases (44%), respectively, and in 1 of 91 controls (1%) ( P < 0.001); splenomegaly was present in 13 of 27 cases (48%) and in 8 of 91 controls (10%) ( P < 0.001); and biliary tract dilatation was present in 13 of 27 cases (48%) and in 11 of 91 patients controls (5%) ( P < 0.001). In the controls, periportal edema was significantly less frequent beyond 12 months after transplant (1% vs 11%; P = 0.020); the other signs after 12 months were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of periportal edema, biliary dilatation, ascites, and hepatosplenomegaly can serve as potential warning signs of ongoing chronic liver rejection. It is especially important to investigate periportal edema if it is present 1 year or more after orthotopic liver transplantation.

Modern Outcomes After Liver Retransplantation: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

The need for liver retransplantation (reLT) has increased proportionally with greater numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed, use of marginal donors, degree of recipient preoperative liver dysfunction, and longer survival after LT. However, outcomes following reLT have been historically regarded as poor.

METHODS

To evaluate reLT in modern recipients, we retrospectively examined our single-center experience. Analysis included 1268 patients undergoing single LT and 68 patients undergoing reLT from January 2008 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Pre-LT mechanical ventilation, body mass index at LT, donor-recipient ABO incompatibility, early acute rejection, and length of hospitalization were associated with increased risk of needing reLT following index transplant. Overall and graft survival outcomes in the reLT cohort were equivalent to those after single LT. Mortality after reLT was associated with Kidney Donor Profile Index, national organ sharing at reLT, and LT donor death by anoxia and blood urea nitrogen levels. Survival after reLT was independent of the interval between initial LT and reLT, intraoperative packed red blood cell use, cold ischemia time, and preoperative mechanical ventilation, all previously linked to worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that reLT is currently a safer option for patients with liver graft failure, with comparable outcomes to primary LT.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BACKGROUND

Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.

METHOD

We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.

RESULTS

A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

Emergency, ABO-Incompatible Living Donor Liver Re-Transplantation for Graft Failure Complicated by Pneumonia-Associated Sepsis

Although liver re-transplantation is the only therapeutic option for acute and chronic graft failure, few studies have addressed the use of ABO-incompatible living donors in the emergency setting. Here, based on our experience, we report a successful case of emergency, ABO-incompatible, adult-to-adult, living donor liver re-transplantation (LDLT) for late graft failure from chronic rejection complicated by pneumonia-related sepsis. A fifty-five-year-old man had undergone LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis in 30 September 2013. The voluntary donor was his 56-year-old wife, who was also a carrier of HCV. The donor and recipient blood types were the same: O and Rh positive. She underwent a right hepatectomy and was discharged on postoperative day (POD) seven. The patient was also discharged without complications on POD eleven and was followed up with on an outpatient basis. Abdominal distension and jaundice were developed at 6 months after LDLT, when the serum total bilirubin level was 2.7 mg/dL. The serum total bilirubin levels increased rapidly to 22.9 mg/dL over the next 4 months. Chronic rejection was diagnosed via liver biopsy. On 3 October 2014, he developed pneumonia-related sepsis and showed the progressive deterioration of liver function. Liver re-transplantation using the right liver from his ABO-incompatible, 20-year-old nephew was performed as an emergency in 15 October 2014. The donor blood type was A and Rh positive. The resection of the failed graft and the implantation of a new graft was performed by the intragraft dissection technique to re-use previously transplanted graft vessels in order to cope with severe adhesions. The recipient went through a gradual recovery process and was finally discharged on POD 50 with normal liver function, while the donor had an uneventful recovery and was discharged on POD 7. Biloma due to bile leak was detected three months after re-transplantation and was cured by percutaneous interventional procedures. Since then, the postoperative course has been event-free at regular outpatient follow-ups. The patient has so far had normal laboratory findings and no signs of complications. It has been 98 months since the re-transplantation, and the recipient and two donors are still in good condition with normal liver function, having complete satisfaction with the results obtained from this re-transplantation. In conclusion, long-term, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved in emergency, ABO-incompatible, adult-to-adult, living donor liver re-transplantation for graft failure complicated by pneumonia-related sepsis in selected patients.

Chronic rejection after liver transplantation: Opening the Pandora’s box

Chronic rejection (CR) of liver allografts causes damage to intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts and may lead to graft failure after liver transplantation. Although its prevalence has declined steadily with the introduction of potent immunosuppressive therapy, CR still represents an important cause of graft injury, which might be irreversible, leading to graft loss requiring re-transplantation. To date, we still do not fully appreciate the mechanisms underlying this process. In addition to T cell-mediated CR, which was initially the only recognized type of CR, recently a new form of liver allograft CR, antibody-mediated CR, has been identified. This has indeed opened an era of thriving research and renewed interest in the field. Liver biopsy is needed for a definitive diagnosis of CR, but current research is aiming to identify new non-invasive tools for predicting patients at risk for CR after liver transplantation. Moreover, the minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppressive therapy might influence the establishment of subclinical CR-related injury, which should not be disregarded. Therapies for CR may only be effective in the “early” phases, and a tailored management of the immunosuppression regimen is essential for preventing irreversible liver damage. Herein, we provide an overview of the current knowledge and research on CR, focusing on early detection, identification of non-invasive biomarkers, immunosuppressive management, re-transplantation and future perspectives of CR.

Differences in Early Immunosuppressive Therapy Among Liver Retransplantation Recipients in a National Cohort

BACKGROUND

There is no unified consensus as to the preferred immunosuppression (IS) strategy following liver retransplantation (reLT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Recipient, donor, and center characteristics associated with induction use and early maintenance IS regimen were described. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis evaluated induction receipt as a predictor of post-reLT survival.

RESULTS

There were 3483 adult reLT recipients from 2002 to 2018 at 116 centers with 95.6% being performed at the same center as the initial liver transplant. Timing of reLT was associated with induction IS use and the discharge regimen (P < 0.001 for both) but not with regimens at 6- and 12-month post-reLT (P = 0.1 for both). Among late reLTs (>365 d), initial liver disease cause was a more important determinant of maintenance regimen than graft failure cause. Low-reLT volume centers used induction more often for late reLTs (41.1% versus 22.6% high volume; P = 0.002) yet were less likely to wean to calcineurin inhibitors alone in the first year (19.1% versus 38.7% high volume; P = 0.002). Accounting for recipient and donor factors, depleting induction marginally improved post-reLT mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = 0.08), whereas nondepleting induction had no significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several recipient attributes inform early IS decision-making, this does not occur in a uniform manner and center factors also play a role. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of early IS on post-reLT outcomes.

Incidence and risk factors of primary non-function after liver transplantation using grafts from uncontrolled donors after circulatory death

BACKGROUND

Graft primary non-function (PNF) is the most severe complication after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and is frequently associated with livers from uncontrolled circulatory death (uDCD).

METHODS

We reviewed retrospectively the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of patients showing PNF after receiving uDCD liver grafts. The series comprises 75 OLT performed during 11 years.

RESULTS

The incidence of PNF using uDCD livers was 8%. We compared patients who developed PNF (n = 6) vs. patients without PNF (n = 69). Mean pump flow of donors during normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) was significantly lower in PNF (p = .032). Day 1 post-OLT levels of transaminases and the incidence of renal complications and postoperative mortality were also significantly higher in the PNF group, but 5-year patient survival was similar in both groups (66.7% in PNF and 68.5% in non-PNF). All PNF patients underwent re-OLT, and 2 died. PNF incidence has decreased in the last 5-years. Binary logistic regression analysis confirmed final ALT value >4 times the normal value as risk factor for PNF, and median donor pump flow >3700 ml/min as protective effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate donor pump flow during NRP was a protective.

Liver fibrosis: Pathophysiology and clinical implications

Liver fibrosis is a clinically significant finding that has major impacts on patient morbidity and mortality. The mechanism of fibrosis involves many different cellular pathways, but the major cell type involved appears to be hepatic stellate cells. Many liver diseases, including Hepatitis B, C, and fatty liver disease cause ongoing hepatocellular damage leading to liver fibrosis. No matter the cause of liver disease, liver-related mortality increases exponentially with increasing fibrosis. The progression to cirrhosis brings more dramatic mortality and higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Fibrosis can also affect outcomes following liver transplantation in adult and pediatric patients and require retransplantation. Drugs exist to treat Hepatitis B and C that reverse fibrosis in patients with those viral diseases, but there are currently no therapies to directly treat liver fibrosis. Several mouse models of chronic liver diseases have been successfully reversed using novel drug targets with current therapies focusing mostly on prevention of myofibroblast activation. Further research in these areas could lead to development of drugs to treat fibrosis, which will have invaluable impact on patient survival. This article is categorized under: Metabolic Diseases > Molecular and Cellular Physiology.

Results of Early Liver Retransplantation

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation can be classified as urgent (when performed in the first week after the transplantation) or elective, which may be considered as early (first month post-transplantation) or late (after the first month). The time in which retransplantation takes place is determined by the cause that makes it necessary. The goal of this study is to analyze the causes and results of early retransplantation in our center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of liver retransplantations performed within the first month after the original transplantation in our center between 2007 and 2017 was carried out. The variables analyzed were demographic, causes of the first transplant and retransplantation, and the complications and mortality resulting from the latter.

RESULTS

A total of 698 liver transplants were performed, including 67 patients who required retransplantation (8.9%). Among these, 37 were late elective retransplantations and 30 were early retransplantations. Regarding the latter, the causes that led to the first transplant were hepatocellular carcinoma (46.7%) and noncholestatic cirrhosis (30%). On the other hand, the main precipitants of the retransplantation were hepatic artery thrombosis (60%) and primary graft failure (13.3%). The reoperation rate was 16.7%, and the perioperative mortality rate was 16.7%. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates were 83.3%, 76.7% and 59.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high perioperative morbidity of liver retransplantation, its results in terms of survival are similar to those of the global series of liver transplantation.

Complex liver retransplantation to treat graft loss due to long-term biliary tract complication after liver transplantation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Loss of graft function after liver transplantation (LT) inevitably requires liver retransplant. Retransplantation of the liver (ReLT) remains controversial because of inferior outcomes compared with the primary orthotopic LT (OLT). Meanwhile, if accompanied by vascular complications such as arterial and portal vein (PV) stenosis or thrombosis, it will increase difficulties of surgery. We hereby introduce our center's experience in ReLT through a complicated case of ReLT.

CASE SUMMARY

We report a patient who suffered from hepatitis B-associated cirrhosis and underwent LT in December 2012. Early postoperative recovery was uneventful. Four months after LT, the patient’s bilirubin increased significantly and he was diagnosed with an ischemic-type biliary lesion caused by hepatic artery occlusion. The patient underwent percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage and repeatedly replaced intrahepatic biliary drainage tube regularly for 5 years. The patient developed progressive deterioration of liver function and underwent liver re-transplant in January 2019. The operation was performed in a classic OLT manner without venous bypass. Both the hepatic artery and PV were occluded and could not be used for anastomosis. The donor PV was anastomosed with the recipient’s left renal vein. The donor hepatic artery was connected to the recipient’s abdominal aorta. The bile duct reconstruction was performed in an end-to-end manner. The postoperative process was very uneventful and the patient was discharged 1 mo after retransplantation.

CONCLUSION

With the development of surgical techniques, portal thrombosis and arterial occlusion are no longer contraindications for ReLT.

Excellent Contemporary Graft Survival for Adult Liver Retransplantation: An Australian and New Zealand Registry Analysis From 1986 to 2017

Background.

Liver retransplantation is technically challenging, and historical outcomes are significantly worse than for first transplantations. This study aimed to assess graft and patient survival in all Australian and New Zealand liver transplantation units.

Methods.

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Australia and New Zealand Liver Transplant Registry. Graft and patient survival were analyzed according to era. Cox regression was used to determine recipient, donor, or intraoperative variables associated with outcomes.

Results.

Between 1986 and 2017, Australia and New Zealand performed 4514 adult liver transplants, 302 (6.7%) of which were retransplantations (278 with 2, 22 with 3, 2 with 4). The main causes of graft failure were hepatic artery or portal vein thrombosis (29%), disease recurrence (21%), and graft nonfunction (15%). Patients retransplanted after 2000 had a graft survival of 85% at 1 year, 75% at 5 years, and 64% at 10 years. Patient survival was 89%, 81%, and 74%, respectively. This was higher than retransplantations before 2000 (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis found that increased recipient age (P = 0.001), recipient weight (P = 0.019), and donor age (P = 0.011) were associated with decreased graft survival prior to 2000; however, only increased patient weight was significant after 2000 (P = 0.041). Multivariate analysis found only increased recipient weight (P = 0.042) and donor age (P = 0.025) was significant prior to 2000. There was no difference in survival for second and third retransplants or comparing time to retransplant.

Conclusions.

Australia and New Zealand have excellent survival following liver retransplantation. These contemporary results should be utilized for transplant waitlist methods.

Primary non-function is frequently associated with fatty liver allografts and high mortality after re-transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The shortage of liver donations demands the use of suboptimal grafts with steatosis being a frequent finding. Although ≤30% macrovesicular steatosis is considered to be safe the risk for primary non-function (PNF) and outcome after re-transplantation (re-OLT) is unknown.

METHODS

Among 1205 orthotopic liver transplantations performed at our institution the frequency, survival and reason of re-OLT were evaluated. PNF (group A) cases and those with initial transplant function but subsequent need for re-OLT (group B) were analysed. Histopathology and clinical judgement determined the cause of PNF and included an assessment of hepatic steatosis. Additionally, survival of fatty liver allografts (group C) not requiring re-OLT was considered in Kaplan-Meier and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 77 high urgency re-OLTs were identified and included 39 PNF cases. Nearly 70% of PNF cases were due to primary fatty liver allografts. The 3-month in-hospital mortality for PNF cases after re-OLT was 46% and the mean survival after re-OLT was 0.5 years as compared to 5.2 and 5.1 years for group B, C, respectively, (P<.008). In multivariate Cox regression analysis only hepatic steatosis was associated with an inferior survival (HR 4.272, P=.002). The MELD score, donor BMI, age, cold ischaemic time, ICU stay, serum sodium and transaminases did not influence overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights fatty liver allografts to be a major cause for PNF with excessive mortality after re-transplantation. The findings demand the development of new methods to predict risk for PNF of fatty liver allografts.

Is Elective Status a Predictor of Poor Survival in Liver Retransplantation?

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (reLT) is considered to have poorer outcomes than primary transplantation. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of medical urgency status as a predictor of patient survival after reLT.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients who underwent reLT were included in this retrospective study. Urgent or elective status was based on the judgment of the surgical team, selected variables, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with patient survival following reLT.

RESULTS

Overall survival of the patient cohort was 57% at 1 year and 54.3% at 3 years after reTL. Survival in urgent-status patients was 68.8% and 63.4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, whereas the survival rate for elective patients was 40.0% at both time points. Mortality was significantly associated with elective status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.42; P = .046) at 1 year, but was no longer significant (HR, 2.19; P < .069) after 3 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective status is associated with poorer outcome. Patient selection determines long-term survival more than any other single factor, so for patients designated to an elective status, prompt retransplantation should be encouraged.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

Hepatic retransplantation has been surgically challenging since the beginning of liver transplant. Outcomes have improved over time, but patient survival with retransplant continues to be significantly worse than that of primary transplant. Many studies have focused on factors to predict outcomes. Models have been developed to help predict risk, but the decision for retransplant must be a multidisciplinary transplant team decision. The question of "when is too much?" can be guided by recipient and donor factors but is an ethical decision that must be made by the liver transplant team.

Effectiveness and tolerability of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in nontransplant and post-liver transplant patients with hepatitis C genotype 1

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus genotype 1a (HCV-1a), prior treatment, cirrhosis and post-transplant status are historically associated with poor treatment responses. The new oral direct-acting agents appear to be effective and safe in these patients.

AIMS

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in a diverse real-life cohort of patients, including difficult-to-treat patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 198 consecutive patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 (148 nontransplant, 50 post transplant), who were treated with simeprevir and sofosbuvir for 12 weeks between December 2013 and December 2014. Primary outcome was sustained virological response with undetectable HCV RNA 12 weeks after completion of therapy (SVR12). Risk factors evaluated for lack of SVR12 included HCV 1a (vs. 1b), prior treatment (vs. none), and cirrhosis (vs. no cirrhosis).

RESULTS

SVR12 rates were similar in non- and post-transplant settings, 82% and 88%, respectively. There were no significant differences in adverse events in patients regardless of cirrhosis or transplant status. On multivariate analysis also inclusive of gender and liver transplant status, negative predictors of SVR12 were having at least 2 or 3 risk factors (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10-0.87, P = 0.027 or 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.85, P = 0.025, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Simeprevir and sofosbuvir combination is a safe and effective regimen for the treatment of non- and post-transplant patients with traditional risk factors for poor treatment response, unless more than 2 difficult-to-treat risk factors are present.