Correlates and outcomes of alcohol use after single solid organ transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychosocial Diagnosis and Treatment Before and After Organ Transplantation

BACKGROUND

This new clinical practice guideline concerns the psychosocial diagnosis and treatment of patients before and after organ transplantation. Its objective is to establish standards and to issue evidence-based recommendations that will help to optimize decision making in psychosocial diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

For each key question, the literature was systematically searched in at least two databases (Medline, Ovid, Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL). The end date of each search was between August 2018 and November 2019, depending on the question. The literature search was also updated to capture recent publications, by using a selective approach.

RESULTS

Lack of adherence to immunosuppressant drugs can be expected in 25-30% of patients and increases the odds of organ loss after kidney transplantation (odds ratio 7.1). Psychosocial interventions can significantly improve adherence. Metaanalyses have shown that adherence was achieved 10-20% more frequently in the intervention group than in the control group. 13-40% of patients suffer from depression after transplantation; mortality in this group is 65% higher. The guideline group therefore recommends that experts in psychosomatic medicine, psychiatry, and psychology (mental health professionals) should be involved in patient care throughout the transplantation process.

CONCLUSION

The care of patients before and after organ transplantation should be multidisciplinary. Nonadherence rates and comorbid mental disorders are common and associated with poorer outcomes after transplantation. Interventions to improve adherence are effective, although the pertinent studies display marked heterogeneity and a high risk of bias.

Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study

BACKGROUND

An essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias.

OBJECTIVE

To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

RESULTS

Most reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.

How to screen for at-risk alcohol use in transplant patients? From instrument selection to implementation of the AUDIT-C

BACKGROUND

Given that drinking >2-3 units of alcohol daily might already have adverse health effects, regular screening of at-risk drinking is warranted. We aimed to select and pilot a short instrument to accurately screen for at-risk drinking in transplant patients.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Five consecutive steps were completed: A comprehensive literature review identified 24 possible self-report instruments (step 1). These instruments were scored on six yes/no criteria (ie, length, concept measured, diagnostic accuracy, population, manual available, cost) (step 2). Four nurses piloted three instruments with the highest score and were interviewed on their experiences with using the AUDIT-C, TWEAK, and Five Shot. The AUDIT-C was the easiest to use and score, and items were clear. Cognitive debriefings with 16 patients were conducted to verify clarity of instructions and items, and suggestions were incorporated into a modified version of the AUDIT-C (step 4). A convenience sample of 130 Dutch-speaking heart transplant patients completed the modified AUDIT-C during a scheduled visit (Step 5), revealing that 27.6% of patients showed at-risk drinking.

CONCLUSION

The AUDIT-C might be a suitable instrument to identify at-risk drinking in routine post-transplant follow-up. Further validation, however, is indicated.

Prospective single-centre clinical observational study on electronically monitored medication non-adherence, its psychosocial risk factors and lifestyle behaviours after heart transplantation: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

In heart transplant recipients (HTRs), non-adherence (NA) to immunosuppressive (IS) medication and to recommended lifestyle behaviours are a common phenomenon and associated with higher risk of allograft rejection, organ loss and mortality. Risk factors for NA are highly diverse and still insufficiently researched. Precise measures of NA and an accurate understanding of its aetiology are of undisputable importance to detect patients at risk and intervene accordingly. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy and concordance of different measures for NA as well as to determine potential risk factors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre prospective observational trial. HTRs who are at least aged 18 are no less than 6 months post-transplant and receive tacrolimus (Prograf or Advagraf), cyclosporine (Sandimmun) or everolimus (Certican) as their prescribed IS medication are eligible for participation. We only include patients during the phase of medication implementation. At study enrolment, we assess depression, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, social support, attachment, experiences and attitudes towards IS medication, emotional responses after transplantation, satisfaction with information about IS medication and perceptions and beliefs about medications. We further ask patients to rate their lifestyle behaviours concerning alcohol, smoking, diet, physical activity, sun protection and appointment keeping via questionnaires. Three different measurement methods for NA are applied at T0: self-reports, physician's estimates and IS trough levels. NA is monitored prospectively using an electronic multicompartment pillbox (MEMS, VAICA) over a 3-month period. Meanwhile, participants receive phone calls every second week to obtain additional self-reports, resulting in a total of seven measurement points.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Clinical Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Erlangen (Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nürnberg). Written informed consent is attained from all participants. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00020496.

Liver Transplantation for Alcoholic Liver Disease: What Is the Risk and Consequence of Relapse?

Although short- and medium-term outcomes after liver transplantation for alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) are generally excellent and similar to outcomes for transplantation for other indications, a return to alcohol consumption commonly occurs even though rates of alcohol consumption after transplantation for ARLD are comparable to those seen in other indications. Transplant recipients should be questioned about alcohol use post-transplantation and, where appropriate, monitored; those drinking significant amounts should be offered treatment with the help of a multi-disciplinary team. Although short-term significant alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of non-compliance and rejection, medium-term outcomes are similar to other groups. Patients transplanted for ARLD have a greater risk of some de novo malignancies, especially of the lung and the upper GI tract. More work is required both to identify those at risk of a return to destructive patterns of alcohol use at an early stage and to develop effective treatments aimed at reaching and maintaining abstinence.

Psychosocial Evaluation of Candidates for Heart Transplant and Ventricular Assist Devices: Beyond the Current Consensus

Advanced heart failure therapies, including heart transplantation and durable mechanical circulatory support, are available to a limited number of patients because of the scarcity of donors, expense, and large burden of care. The importance of psychological and social determinants of health, including cognitive status, health literacy, psychopathology, social support, medical adherence, and substance abuse, are emphasized in advanced heart failure and further amplified in the context of mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation. The psychosocial assessment of advanced heart failure therapy candidates remains largely subjective, requiring a multidisciplinary evaluation, which may include psychiatrists, social workers, case managers, financial coordinators, pharmacists, and clinicians. Objective tools—including the Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplantation, Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation, and Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale—were developed and validated in limited populations to help standardize the evaluation process. Small, retrospective studies have inconsistently shown that these tools may predict clinical outcomes in the transplant population, with higher-risk scores associated with readmissions, rejection episodes, and infections. However, it has been more difficult to show that these tools can predict mortality, and their applicability to the mechanical circulatory support population is less studied. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation released a consensus statement in 2018 to promote consistency of psychosocial evaluation across advanced heart failure programs, but it lacks specific recommendations given the current state of evidence. This state-of-the-art review expands on the current consensus by critically reviewing current studies supporting available objective assessment tools, proposing a psychosocial evaluation framework that uses a multidisciplinary approach and offering future directions for research.