Cost Analysis and Determinants of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Taiwan

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Immunoglobulin, nucleos(t)ide analogues and hepatitis B virus recurrence after liver transplant: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) represents an efficient strategy for reducing the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). Unfortunately, the long-term use of HBIG presents high costs. Therefore, the use of prophylaxis based only on nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUC) has been recently postulated. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of HBIG ± NUC vs HBIG alone or NUC alone in post-LT HBV recurrence prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome investigated was the HBV recurrence after LT. Three analyses were done comparing the effect of (a) HBIG + NUC vs HBIG alone; (b) HBIG+NUC vs NUC alone; and (c) HBIG alone vs NUC alone. Sub-analyses were also performed investigating the effect of low and high genetic barrierto-recurrence NUC.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included. The summary OR (95%CI) showed a decreased risk with the combination of HBIG + NUC vs HBIG alone for HBV recurrence, being 0.36 (95% CI = 0.22-0.61; P < .001). HBIG + NUC combined treatment reduced HBV reappearance respect to NUC alone (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.16-0.30; P < .0001). Similarly, HBIG alone was significantly better than NUC alone in preventing HBV recurrence (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.09-0.44; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with HBIG is relevant in preventing post-LT HBV recurrence. Its combination with NUC gives the best results in terms of protection. The present results should be considered in light of the fact that also old studies based on lamivudine use were included. Studies exploring in detail high genetic barrier-to-recurrence NUC and protocols with definite use of HBIG are needed.

Comparing CLIF-C ACLF, CLIF-C ACLFlactate, and CLIF-C ACLF-D Prognostic Scores in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Patients by a Single-Center ICU Experience

Patients with liver cirrhosis have a higher risk of developing acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Poor prognosis with a high rate of short-term mortality leads to limited opportunities for further liver transplantation. Thus, precise prognostic evaluation of patients with ACLF is necessary before transplant surgery. In this study, a total of one hundred and thirty-five patients with ACLF admitted to the hepato-gastroenterologic intensive care unit (ICU) for intensive monitoring and treatment at Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH, Linkou, Taiwan) were screened from November 2012 to April 2015 and tracked until April 2017. Three new prognostic scores of ACLF, including CLIF-C ACLF (Chronic Liver Failure Consortium Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure score), CLIF-C ACLF-D (CLIF-C ACLF Development score), and CLLF-C ACLF_lactate (lactate-adjusted CLIF-C ACLF score) were compared. The primary outcome considered was overall mortality. Mortality predictions at 28, 90, 180, and 365 days were also calculated. By area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis, the CLIF-C ACLF and CLIF-C ACLF-D scores were superior to CLIF-C ACLF_lactate scores in predicting 28-day mortality. The CLIF-C ACLF-D score had the highest AUROC in predicting overall mortality as well as at 90, 180, and 365 days. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that CLIF-C ACLF and CLIF-C ACLF-D scores are significant predictors of outcome in critical patients with liver cirrhosis and ACLF. The CLIF-C ACLF-D score may have a superior predictive power for the prediction of 3-month, 6-month, and one-year mortality.