First results from a prospective randomized trial comparing steroid-free induction therapy with tacrolimus and MMF versus tacrolimus and steroids in patients after liver transplantation for HCV

Safety and effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil associated with tacrolimus for liver transplantation immunosuppression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A combination of immunosuppressants may improve outcomes due to the synergistic effect of their different action mechanisms. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best immunosuppressive protocol after liver transplantation. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tacrolimus associated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eight randomized trials were included. The proportion of patients with at least one adverse event related to the immunosuppression scheme with tacrolimus associated with MMF was 39.9%. The tacrolimus with MMF immunosuppression regimen was superior in preventing acute cellular rejection compared with that of tacrolimus alone (risk difference [RD]=-0.11; p =0.001). The tacrolimus plus MMF regimen showed no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to that of tacrolimus alone (RD=0.7; p=0.66) and cyclosporine plus MMF (RD=-0.7; p=0.37). Patients undergoing liver transplantation who received tacrolimus plus MMF had similar adverse events when compared to patients receiving other evaluated immunosuppressive regimens and had a lower risk of acute rejection than those receiving in the monodrug tacrolimus regimen.

Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide for Liver Transplant Immune Suppression: Results of a Pilot Phase 2a Trial

Despite adverse effects like hyperglycemia, new-onset diabetes after transplant (NODAT), and infectious complications, corticosteroid use remains an important part of liver transplantation (LT) immune suppression. Budesonide, a synthetic corticosteroid, undergoes extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism with only 10% systemic bioavailability, providing an opportunity for an improved toxicity-therapeutic ratio. Although effective in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis, the effects of budesonide for LT immune suppression are unknown. We conducted a single-center phase 2a trial to study the safety and efficacy of budesonide immunosuppressive therapy. From July 2017 to November 2018, 20 patients undergoing a first LT received budesonide tapering doses (from 9 to 3 mg) for 12 weeks. Patients were compared with matched control patients who received prednisone from the same time period. Additionally, both groups received calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolate mofetil. Outcome measures at week 24 included rates of biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection (ACR), NODAT (hemoglobin A1c >6.4%), and infectious complications. In the budesonide arm, 1 patient developed ACR at week 5 and was removed from the study. Another patient stopped the study drug at week 8 due to persistent nausea. Rates of ACR were similar between the budesonide and control groups (5% versus 5%, P = 1.00). Three patients in the control group developed NODAT versus none in the budesonide group (15% versus 0%; P = 0.23). There were 6 infections in the control group compared with none in the budesonide group (30% versus 0; P = 0.02). These pilot data suggest that budesonide has the potential to be a safe and effective alternative to prednisone for LT immune suppression while reducing steroid-induced infections and NODAT. Randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings.

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.

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.

Mycophenolate mofetil in patients with hepatitis C virus infection

Diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) -related autoimmune features has become a clinical challenge in HCV-infected patients, in whom chronic liver disease associated with severe autoimmune features may contribute to a very poor prognosis. Both antiviral and immunosuppressive therapies, either alone or in combination, seem likely to have a key role. Based on the experience of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use in HCV patients receiving organ transplantation, this new immunosuppressive agent might represent a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat HCV-related extrahepatic features. Recent data are available for the use of MMF in HCV patients with autoimmune manifestations, mainly for autoimmune cytopenias and vasculitic features. MMF may be used as monotherapy or in association with other drugs for cases of HCV-related autoimmune diseases refractory or intolerant to common immunosuppressive treatments, allowing the reduction of the drug dosage and avoiding serious side effects.

Mycophenolate mofetil in patients with hepatitis C virus infection

Diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) -related autoimmune features has become a clinical challenge in HCV-infected patients, in whom chronic liver disease associated with severe autoimmune features may contribute to a very poor prognosis. Both antiviral and immunosuppressive therapies, either alone or in combination, seem likely to have a key role. Based on the experience of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use in HCV patients receiving organ transplantation, this new immunosuppressive agent might represent a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat HCV-related extrahepatic features. Recent data are available for the use of MMF in HCV patients with autoimmune manifestations, mainly for autoimmune cytopenias and vasculitic features. MMF may be used as monotherapy or in association with other drugs for cases of HCV-related autoimmune diseases refractory or intolerant to common immunosuppressive treatments, allowing the reduction of the drug dosage and avoiding serious side effects.

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.

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.

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.

Completely steroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: a randomized study

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids (CS) have been standard immunosuppression to prevent and treat rejection. However, CS are associated with increased risk of infection, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and accelerated hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence post-orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This study assesses the safety and efficacy of CS-free immunosuppressive regimen in adult OLT.

METHODS

A two-yr, prospective, randomized study of CS with delayed withdrawal (CS) or CS-free regimen with basiliximab, tacrolimus, and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) was performed in 39 patients (CS=20; CS-free=19). CS group received intra-operative methylprednisolone weaned by six months. HCV patients had HCV PCR pre-OLT and 0.5, one, three, and six months post-OLT. Protocol liver biopsies were performed at OLT, 2 and 24 wk post-OLT or when indicated.

RESULTS

Rejection occurred in two patients. Patient survival at one yr (100% vs. 95%), three yr (85% vs. 63%), and five yr (80% vs. 63%) post-OLT were similar between CS and CS-free group, respectively. Death-censored graft survival at one yr (100% vs. 95%), three yr (85% vs. 63%), and five yr (75% vs. 63%) were also similar. The risk of new-onset DM, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and weight gain was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

CS avoidance with basiliximab, calcineurin inhibitor, and EC-MPS is safe and effective as CS- containing immunosuppression in adult OLT.

A prospective, randomized trial of complete avoidance of steroids in liver transplantation with follow-up of over 7 years

OBJECTIVES

Steroids are a mainstay of treatment in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and are associated with significant morbidity. This trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of steroids avoidance.

METHODS

Patients undergoing OLT between June 2002 and April 2005 were entered into a prospective, randomized trial of complete steroids avoidance and followed until November 2011. Recipients received either standard therapy (n = 50) or complete steroids avoidance (n = 50). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The mean follow-up of all recipients was 2095 ± 117 days. Sixteen (32%) recipients randomized to the steroids avoidance group ultimately received steroids for clinical indications.

RESULTS

Incidences of diabetes and hypertension prior to or after OLT were similar in both groups, as was the incidence of rejection. Patient and graft survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were lower in the steroids avoidance group than in the standard therapy group (patient survival: 1-year, 80% versus 86%; 3-year, 68% versus 76%; 5-year, 60% versus 72%; graft survival: 1-year, 76% versus 76%; 3-year, 64% versus 74%; 5-year, 56% versus 72%), but the differences were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete steroids avoidance provides liver transplant recipients with minimal benefit and appears to result in a concerning trend towards decreased graft and recipient survival. The present data support the use of at least a short course of steroids after liver transplantation.

Safety and efficacy of four steroid-minimization protocols in liver transplant recipients: 3-year follow-up in a single center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of steroid-minimization therapy in liver transplantation (LT) recipients with hepatitis B virus-related diseases in China.

METHODS

From March 2000 to June 2007, 502 adult LT recipients, mostly with hepatitis B (HBV)-related diseases, were enrolled in our study. Four study groups were setup according to the steroid-minimization protocols: tacrolimus (TAC) with 6 months steroids withdrawal (6M SW), TAC with 3 months SW (3M SW), TAC with 14 days SW (14d SW), and TAC with basiliximab induction and steroids avoidance (Bas SA). All patients were followed up for at least 36 months after LT.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the overall 3-year survival rates of the patients and graft, and chronic rejection among the four groups (P = 0.092, P = 0.113 and P = 0.684, respectively). There was also no difference in acute rejection within 12 months after LT (P = 0.514). The 3-year recurrence rates of HBV infection and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after LT were significantly different among all the groups (lowest in TAC/Bas SA group; P = 0.037 and P = 0.029, respectively). The overall incidence of infection was significantly higher in the 6M SW group (62.2% vs 56.1% in 3M SW, 30.5% in 14d SW, 20.5% in Bas SA; P < 0.01). By the end of the 3-year follow-up, more than 90% of the surviving patients could safely receive TAC monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Bas SA immunosuppressive protocol can be achieved safely in LT and reduce HBV infection and HCC recurrence and side effects of steroids after LT.

Azathioprine in liver transplantation: a reevaluation of its use and a comparison with mycophenolate mofetil

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) combined with steroids with or without azathioprine (AZA), have been a standard immunosuppression regimen after liver transplantation (LT). Since 2000 many centers have substituted AZA by mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). However, in LT the superiority of MMF over AZA is not clearly demonstrated. Therefore, we questioned the benefit of MMF versus AZA in LT with regard to rejection, renal dysfunction and hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and survival. Using a literature search, relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies were identified: two RCTs compared MMF to AZA only for acute rejection. Treated rejection was less with MMF in only one RCT (38.5% vs. 47.7%; p = 0.025), with no difference in patient and graft survival. No RCTs compared MMF and AZA in patients with CNI-related chronic renal dysfunction. Among two studies evaluating MMF, with substitution of AZA, one was stopped due to severe rejection. Recurrent HCV was less severe in 5/9 studies with AZA compared with 2/17 using MMF, six of which documented worse recurrence. Published data in LT show little, if any, clinical benefit of MMF versus AZA. RCTs should reevaluate AZA in LT. Evaluation of HCV replication and recurrence will be particularly important as AZA may have advantages over MMF.

Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes

To examine the impact of steroid withdrawal from the immunosuppression protocols in liver transplantation. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library were searched. Meta-analysis pooled the effects of outcomes of a total of 2590 patients enrolled into 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using classic and modern meta-analytic methods. Meta-analysis of RCTs addressing patients transplanted for any indication showed no differences between corticosteroid-free immunosuppression and steroid-based protocols in most of the analyzed outcomes. More importantly, steroid-free cohorts appeared to benefit in terms of de novo diabetes mellitus development [R.R = 1.86 (1.43, 2.41)], Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection [R.R = 1.47 (0.99, 2.17)], cholesterol levels [WMD = 19.71 (13.7, 25.7)], the number of patients that received the allocated treatment [O.R = 1.55 (1.17, 2.05)], severe acute rejection [R.R = 1.71 (1.14, 2.54)] and overall acute rejection [R.R = 1.31 (1.09, 1.58)] (when steroids were replaced in the steroid-free arm). Taking RCTs into account independently when steroids were not replaced, overall acute rejection was favoring the steroid-based arm [R.R = 0.75 (0.58, 0.98)]. Studies addressing exclusively transplanted HCV patients demonstrated a significant advantage of steroid-free protocols considering HCV recurrence [R.R = 1.15 (1.01, 1.13)], acute graft hepatitis [O.R = 3.15 (1.18, 8.40)], and treatment failure [O.R = 1.87 (1.33, 2.63)]. No unfavorable effects were observed after steroid withdrawal during short-term follow-up. On the contrary, significant advantages were documented.

Steroid avoidance in liver transplantation: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized trials

Steroid use after liver transplantation (LT) has been associated with diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and hepatitis C (HCV) recurrence. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of 30 publications representing 19 randomized trials that compared steroid-free with steroid-based immunosuppression (IS). There were no differences in death, graft loss, and infection. Steroid-free recipients demonstrated a trend toward reduced hypertension [relative risk (RR) 0.84, P = 0.08], and statistically significant decreases in cholesterol (standard mean difference -0.41, P < 0.001) and cytomegalovirus (RR 0.52, P = 0.001). In studies where steroids were replaced by another IS agent, the risks of diabetes (RR 0.29, P < 0.001), rejection (RR 0.68, P = 0.03), and severe rejection (RR 0.37, P = 0.001) were markedly lower in steroid-free arms. In studies in which steroids were not replaced, rejection rates were higher in steroid-free arms (RR 1.31, P = 0.02) and reduction of diabetes was attenuated (RR 0.74, P = 0.2). HCV recurrence was lower with steroid avoidance and, although no individual trial reached statistical significance, meta-analysis demonstrated this important effect (RR 0.90, P = 0.03). However, we emphasize the heterogeneity of trials performed to date and, as such, do not recommend basing clinical guidelines on our conclusions. We believe that a large, multicenter trial will better define the role of steroid-free regimens in LT.

Management of hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation

Recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has been associated with progression to cirrhosis in approximately 20% of patients, 5 years postoperatively. Accelerated decompensation has also been noted when compared with cirrhosis in non-transplant patients. Different treatment strategies are available for recurrent HCV infection post-OLT, but efforts are hindered by the modest response rates, poor tolerability and the risk of rejection as well as graft loss. Anti-HCV immunoglobulin therapy to prevent graft infection with HCV has no established role at present but studies are ongoing. Treatment prior to transplantation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis has been evaluated but the results are too preliminary to make firm recommendations. Prophylactic interferon-based antiviral therapy in the early postoperative period to prevent graft infection was shown to have low response rates and high rates of adverse effects. Treatment of established recurrent HCV infection with combination peginterferon (pegylated interferon) and ribavirin is associated with 10-59% sustained virological response and the predictive value of a positive early virological response has been validated in the post-transplant setting. Improvement in inflammatory activity after viral eradication is well established, but fibrosis regression or stabilisation is less predictable and factors such as rejection and biliary complications may still contribute to graft loss. Most studies have initiated therapy at least 6 months postoperatively in order to optimise patient tolerance and enable the addition of ribavirin. The use of adjuvant agents to treat drug-induced neutropenia and anaemia in this population is evolving and becoming a crucial part of therapy. Determination of optimal doses of both pegylated interferon and ribavirin, and guidance on when to stop treatment, as well as improving tolerability are important steps in achieving higher response rates and minimising drug toxicity.

Recurrent hepatitis C post-transplantation: where are we now and where do we go from here? A report from the Canadian transplant hepatology workshop

Approximately 400 liver transplants are performed in Canada every year and close to 6000 per year in the United States. Forty per cent to 45% of all liver transplants are performed for patients with underlying hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease. These patients have a different natural history, new complication risks and different treatment efficacy than nontransplant HCV patients. Every effort must be made to identify those patients at highest risk for progressive liver disease post-transplant. Recurrent HCV is an Achilles' heel to transplant hepatology. The true natural history of this disease is only starting to unravel and many questions remain unanswered on the optimal management of these patients after liver transplantation. The present report summarizes the literature and ongoing research needs that are specific to HCV-related liver transplantation.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the leading cause of endstage liver disease in Western and Asian countries. However, after liver transplantation, HCV recurs in virtually all patients, and estimated HCV-related graft cirrhosis at 5-year follow-up is 30%. Although immunosuppression accounts for a major part of the accelerated progression of HCV in the transplant population, the best immunosuppression for recipients with HCV that could avoid such complication remains unknown at present. Combination therapy of interferon and ribavirin is thought to be the most effective for the treatment or prophylaxis of HCV infection. However, who should be treated, when treatment should be initiated, and with what agent should patients with HCV infection be treated are still unknown. The current data on HCV recurrence in patients who have received either living- or deceased-donor liver transplantation are controversial, but they are, presumably, similar. Thus, to avoid HCV recurrence in living-donor liver transplantation, we have to take approaches similar to those used for patients receiving deceased-donor liver transplantation. Based on reports from major transplant centers around the world, we consider the best strategy for liver transplantation-related HCV infection is steroid-free immunosuppression and preemptive low-dose interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. Here we describe our experience with living-donor liver transplantion for patients with hepatitis C at Osaka University. There is a need for standardizing the treatment for HCV infection. This can only be achieved through collaborative work between various liver transplant centers worldwide.

Daclizumab induction and maintenance steroid-free immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus to prevent acute rejection of hepatic allografts

Steroid-free immunosuppressive regimens reduce corticosteroid-related side effects in liver transplant recipients although their efficacy is very variable. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a steroid-free regimen in a 6-month, open-label, multicenter, pilot study, which involved 102 liver transplant patients treated with daclizumab (2 mg/kg within 6 h following transplant and 1 mg/kg on day 7), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, 1 g b.i.d) and tacrolimus (trough levels of 5-15 ng/ml in the first month and 5-10 ng/ml thereafter). One intra-operative dose of methylprednisolone was administered. At 6 months, the acute rejection rate was 9.8%, and patient and graft survival rates were 96% and 95%, respectively. Acute rejection rates were similar for hepatitis C-positive patients (8.6%) and hepatitis C-negative patients (10.4%). Infections occurred in 22% of patients; most cases were considered mild or moderate. Post-transplantation hypertension and diabetes mellitus developed in 37% and 14% of patients, respectively, during the study period, but were markedly less frequent (8% and 6%, respectively) at 6 months. Hypercholesterolemia was observed in only 2% of patients. In conclusion, the steroid-free immunosuppressive regimen of daclizumab, MMF, and tacrolimus effectively prevents acute rejection after liver transplantation without decreasing safety.

Rejection rates in a randomised trial of tacrolimus monotherapy versus triple therapy in liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C virus cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Reducing immunosuppression not only reduces complications but also may lessen recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after liver transplantation.

PATIENTS/METHODS

HCV-infected cirrhotic patients randomised to tacrolimus monotherapy (MT) or triple therapy (TT) using tacrolimus 0.1 mg/kg/day, azathioprine 1 mg/kg/day, and prednisolone 20 mg/day, tapering over 3 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (MT) and 29 (TT)--median follow up 661 days (range, 1-1603). Rejection episodes (protocol/further biopsies) within first 3 months and use of empirical treatment were evaluated. New rejection was diagnosed if repeat biopsy (5-day interval) did not show improvement. Treated rejection episodes: 20 MT (15 biopsy-proven) vs. 24 TT (21 biopsy-proven), with 19 (MT) vs. 24 (TT) methylprednisolone boluses. Overall: 35 episodes (MT) and 46 (TT). Fewer MT patients had histological rejection (70%) than TT patients (86%), with fewer episodes of rejection (18.5% vs. 10%), and more moderate rejection (22% vs. 41%). The MT group had higher early tacrolimus levels. Rates of renal dysfunction, retransplantation, and death were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Tacrolimus monotherapy is a viable immunosuppressive strategy in HCV-infected liver transplant recipients.

Long-term results of mycophenolate mofetil as part of immunosuppressive induction therapy after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to the induction protocol resulted in a lower incidence of rejection episodes. However, the question whether MMF should be administered in combination with tacrolimus or cyclosporine has not been answered yet. In our study, we report on the long-term results of triple induction therapy after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), consisting of MMF and low-dose corticosteroids, in combination with either tacrolimus or cyclosporine.

METHODS

Between March 1996 and April 1997, 120 consecutive patients, who underwent OLT at our institution, were enrolled in this study. Of these patients, 80 received triple induction therapy consisting of cyclosporine and MMF (40) or tacrolimus and MMF (40), in combination with low-dose corticosteroids, whereas the remaining 40 patients served as 'MMF-free' control group receiving dual induction therapy with tacrolimus and corticosteroids. Besides the eight-yr follow-up of patient and graft survival, clinical data were also reviewed for episodes of rejection and infection. Additionally, the early post-operative pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid (MPA, immunological active metabolite of MMF) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Long-term results provided higher patient and graft survival after tacrolimus/MMF-based induction therapy than after cyclosporine/MMF-based induction therapy. However, the tacrolimus-based control protocol yielded similar results and, therefore, no significantly superior effect was observed when MMF was added. The same observation was made for incidence of rejection and infection episodes. AUC and C(max) of MPA increased in combination with tacrolimus compared with cyclosporine.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pharmacological synergy between tacrolimus and MMF was observed, MMF showed no significant beneficial effects in the immunosuppressive induction protocol, neither in combination with tacrolimus nor with cyclosporine.

Corticosteroid-Free Strategies in Liver Transplantation

Corticosteroid avoidance is feasible and may be desirable in liver transplantation. Approximately 50% of liver transplant recipients who use calcineurin inhibitors and azathioprine do not need corticosteroids. The availability of newer agents, such as mycophenolate mofetil and antibody therapy, has increased the percentage of patients who do not need to use corticosteroids to about 75%. The feasibility of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression has been established by controlled trials demonstrating non-inferiority with respect to patterns of rejection as well as patient and graft survival. However, the evidence available to date does not unequivocally establish the benefits of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression, although some advantage has been established relating to post-transplant diabetes mellitus, cytomegalovirus infection and growth patterns in children. The effect of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in hepatitis C liver transplant recipients is yet to be resolved.

A “Steroid-Free” Tacrolimus and Low-Dose Mycophenolate Mofetil Primary Immunosuppression Does Not Prevent Early Acute Rejection After Liver Transplantation

To assess the efficacy and safety of a primary immunosuppressive regimen with tacrolimus (Tac) and low-dose mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) without steroids and to determine the exposure to mycophenolic acid (MPA) in the early postoperative period, we performed a single-center, randomized 1:1, open-label, controlled study planned to be 60 liver transplantation patients randomized into 2 groups: group A, tacrolimus + MMF (750 mg orally twice a day); and group B, tacrolimus + MMF (750 mg orally twice a day) + steroids. After an interim analysis by the ethical committee patient enrollment was stopped. Data from 30 patients (12 in group A and 18 in group B with a mean follow-up period of 31 +/- 7 months) showed a patient survival rate of 91.7% in group A and 100% in group B and a graft survival rate of 91.7% and 88.9%, respectively. Nine patients (75%) in group A suffered an acute rejection episode, whereas in group B only 3 patients (16.7%) showed acute rejection (P = .002). All rejection episodes occurred in both groups at 1 week after transplantation. The difference in histological grading was statistically significant (P = .021). The toxicity profiles were similar in both groups. A primary immunosuppressive regimen based on Tac and low-dose MMF without steroids is safe but unable to prevent acute rejection at 1 week after transplantation even if early acute rejection does not affect the outcome in terms of morbidity and graft or patient survival.

Hepatitis C and renal transplantation in the era of modern immunosuppression

Kidneys from donors who are positive for hepatitis C virus (DHCV+) have recently been identified as an independent risk factor for mortality after renal transplantation. However, it has not been determined whether risk persists after adjustment for baseline cardiac comorbidity or applies in the era of modern immunosuppression. Therefore, a historical cohort study was conducted of US adult cadaveric renal transplant recipients from January 1, 1996, to May 31, 2001; followed until October 31, 2001. A total of 36,956 patients had valid donor and recipient HCV serology. Cox regression analysis was used to model adjusted hazard ratios for mortality and graft loss, respectively, adjusted for other factors, including comorbid conditions from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies Form 2728 and previous dialysis access-related complications. It was found that DHCV+ was independently associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.12, 95% confidence interval, 1.72 to 2.87; P < 0.001), primarily as a result of infection. Mycophenolate mofetil was associated with improved survival in DHCV+ patients, primarily related to fewer infectious deaths. Adjusted analyses limited to recipients who were HCV+, HCV negative, or age 65 and over, or by use of mycophenolate mofetil confirmed that DHCV+ was independently associated with mortality in each subgroup. It is concluded that DHCV+ is independently associated with an increased risk of mortality after renal transplantation adjusted for baseline comorbid conditions in all subgroups. Recipients of DHCV+ organs should be considered at high risk for excessive immunosuppression.