Tacrolimus is effective in both dual and triple regimens after liver transplantation

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.

Critical care issues in adult liver transplantation

Over the last decade, liver transplantation has become an operational reality in our part of the world. As a result, clinicians working in an intensive care unit are more likely to be exposed to these patients in the immediate postoperative period, and thus, it is important that they have a working knowledge of the common complications, when they are likely to occur, and how to deal with them. The main focus of this review is to address the variety of critical care issues in liver transplant recipients and to impress upon the need to provide favorable circumstances for the new liver to start functioning and maintain the function of other organs to aid in this process.

An open, randomized, multicenter clinical trial of oral tacrolimus in liver allograft transplantation: a comparison of dual vs. triple drug therapy

Triple therapy combining an anticalcineurin agent, corticosteroids, and azathioprine (AZA) in liver transplantation has been frequently applied, particularly in Europe. Debates have arisen concerning the use of a third drug (AZA), mainly in patients receiving tacrolimus (TAC). An open-label, multicenter, prospective, and randomized trial was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of TAC and corticosteroids (dual therapy [D]) vs. TAC, corticosteroids, and AZA (triple therapy [T]) in liver transplantation. A total of 180 patients were randomized, 92 in D and 88 in T group. Patients were followed during 3 months for efficacy and safety and up to 24 months for patient and graft survival assessments. The rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection was higher in D than in T group (40.7% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.021). A higher incidence of positive HCV status in D group (55.6% vs. 40.7%; P = 0.049) may explain this difference, since significantly more patients of this HCV subpopulation experienced acute rejection when treated with D therapy (48% vs. 20%; P = 0.008). No treatment differences were apparent for HCV-negative patients. The 24-month graft survival tended to be inferior in T group, 69.8% vs. 75.8% (P = 0.283). Similar results were observed regarding patient survival at the same time point, with values of 72.9% vs. 76.9% (P = 0.573), favoring D group. Both regimens showed comparable safety profiles with the exception of hematological abnormalities, which were more frequently observed in T group. In conclusion, both regimens were shown to be effective although increased toxicity and a trend towards a lower graft and patient survival were observed in T group.

Immunosuppression: towards a logical approach in liver transplantation

Over the last two decades there has been a significant increase in the number and types of immunosuppressive agents that have been available to clinicians. The protocols for immunosuppression used in liver transplantation have been derived historically from those in renal transplantation. During the last decade there has been a shift in the use of immunosuppression, with the introduction of interleukin (IL)-2 receptor antagonists in place of anti-lymphocyte preparations, substitution of tacrolimus for cyclosporin and mycophenolate for azathioprine. The use of corticosteroids has been reduced. For a variety of reasons, these changes have not always been made on the basis of properly randomized studies. The place of newer agents, such as sirolimus and leflunomide derivatives and of the microbiological agents, is unclear. In this review, we outline briefly the mechanism of action of drugs and suggest possible approaches to the management of the liver allograft recipient, suggesting how treatment could be adjusted according to the indication for transplantation as well as the individual's comorbidities.

Tacrolimus: a further update of its use in the management of organ transplantation

Extensive clinical use has confirmed that tacrolimus (Prograf) is a key option for immunosuppression after transplantation. In large, prospective, randomised, multicentre trials in adults and children receiving solid organ transplants, tacrolimus was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure rates and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. Notably, the lower incidence of rejection episodes after renal transplantation in tacrolimus recipients was reflected in improved cost effectiveness. In bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients, the incidence of tacrolimus grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease was significantly lower with tacrolimus than cyclosporin treatment. Efficacy was maintained in renal and liver transplant recipients after total withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy from tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, with the incidence of acute rejection episodes at up to 2 years' follow-up being similar with or without corticosteroids. Tacrolimus provided effective rescue therapy in transplant recipients with persistent acute or chronic allograft rejection or drug-related toxicity associated with cyclosporin treatment. Typically, conversion to tacrolimus reversed rejection episodes and/or improved the tolerability profile, particularly in terms of reduced hyperlipidaemia. In lung transplant recipients with obliterative bronchiolitis, conversion to tacrolimus reduced the decline in and/or improved lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Tolerability issues may be a factor when choosing a calcineurin inhibitor. Cyclosporin tends to be associated with a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, hirsutism, gingivitis and gum hyperplasia, whereas the incidence of some types of neurotoxicity, disturbances in glucose metabolism, diarrhoea, pruritus and alopecia may be higher with tacrolimus treatment. Renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates, was better in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients at up to 5 years' follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Recent well designed trials have consolidated the place of tacrolimus as an important choice for primary immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation and in BMT. Notably, in adults and children receiving transplants, tacrolimus-based primary immunosuppression was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion treatment in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure and the incidence of acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. The reduced incidence of rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus translated into a better cost effectiveness relative to cyclosporin microemulsion treatment. The optimal immunosuppression regimen is ultimately dependent on balancing such factors as the efficacy of the individual drugs, their tolerability, potential for drug interactions and pharmacoeconomic issues.