Tacrolimus monotherapy in liver transplantation: one-year results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Alterations in CD4+ T-cell Subsets in Living Donor Liver Transplantation Associated With Graft Rejection

Background and objectives

Regulatory T-cells (Tregs) play a key role in immune homeostasis after organ transplantation. However, the role of CD4+ T cell subsets in early acute rejection is still not well understood. Therefore, our aim was to determine changes in CD4+ T-cell subsets in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods

LDLT patients were assessed for T-cell subsets, Tregs frequencies and their functionality by flow-cytometry at peri- and post-transplant in the span of 1 year.

Results

33 patients were followed up and 11 (33%) patients have developed early acute cellular rejection (ACR). At peri-transplant time point, MFI of Foxp3+ Tregs was significantly increased compared to HC (P = 0.04). However, CD4+CD25+Foxp3+/CD127- Tregs numbers and IL-10, IL-17 and TGF-β secreting functional Tregs were significantly decreased at 3 months compared to peri-transplant (P = 0.003). But in patients with rejection, CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ and CD4+CD25+CD127- Tregs were significantly decreased at day 3 compared to no rejection group (P = 0.048). Patients with rejection also showed significantly decreased numbers of IL-17 and TGF-β secreting CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ Tregs at peri-transplant time (P = 0.04, P = 0.03) compared to no rejection. Further, rejection group showed decreased terminally differentiated effector memory (TEMRA) at peri-transplant and day 7 (P = 0.048 and P = 0.01). Additionally, CD4+ central memory (CM) was decreased at peri-transplant (P = 0.05), 1 month (P = 0.04), and 3 to 6 month (P = 0.02).

Interpretation and conclusion

Tregs frequencies were significantly decreased in peri-TX in rejection patients. Further, decreased frequencies of CD4+ TEMRA and CD4+ CM at day 7 and 1 month were associated with rejection.

Reappraisal of tacrolimus levels after liver transplant for HCC: A multicenter study toward personalized immunosuppression regimen

Post-liver transplant (LT) immunosuppression is necessary to prevent rejection; however, a major consequence of this is tumor recurrence. Although recurrence is a concern after LT for patients with HCC, the oncologically optimal tacrolimus (FK) regimen is still unknown. This retrospective study included 1406 patients with HCC who underwent LT (2002-2019) at 4 US institutions using variable post-LT immunosuppression regimens. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to investigate the influences of post-LT time-weighted average FK (TWA-FK) level on HCC recurrence. A competing risk analysis was employed to evaluate the prognostic influence of TWA-FK while adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. The AUC for TWA-FK was greatest at 2 weeks (0.68), followed by 1 week (0.64) after LT. Importantly, this was consistently observed across the institutions despite immunosuppression regimen variability. In addition, the TWA-FK at 2 weeks was not associated with rejection within 6 months of LT. A competing risk regression analysis showed that TWA-FK at 2 weeks after LT is significantly associated with recurrence (HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.21-1.41, p < 0.001). The TWA-FK effect on recurrence varied depending on the exposure level and the individual's risk of recurrence, including vascular invasion and tumor morphology. Although previous studies have explored the influence of FK levels at 1-3 months after LT on HCC recurrence, this current study suggests that earlier time points and exposure levels must be evaluated. Each patient's oncological risk must also be considered in developing an individualized immunosuppression regimen.

Efficacy of Prednisone Avoidance in Patients With Liver Transplant Using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

Background Immunosuppressants are administered in various combinations to prevent immune-induced transplant rejection in patients with liver transplant, as each immunosuppressant acts on different cellular sites. However, the use of multiple immunosuppressants also increases the risk for adverse events. Therefore, it is desirable to reduce the types of immunosuppressants administered without increasing the incidence of transplant rejection. The effectiveness of prednisone avoidance has been suggested, although this was not based on statistical significance in many instances. To definitively establish the effectiveness of prednisone avoidance, a statistically significant difference from a prednisone-use group should be demonstrated. Additionally, the effectiveness of prednisone avoidance might vary depending on the combination of other immunosuppressants administered. It has therefore been considered necessary to investigate, for various immunosuppressant combinations, the administration patterns in which prednisone avoidance is effective. Objectives This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of prednisone avoidance in patients with liver transplant and discuss the results based on statistically significant differences. Methods Data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) were obtained. In studying immunosuppressant combinations, it was essential to control for confounding. Thus, the immunosuppressant combinations, excluding prednisone, were kept the same in the two groups being compared (prednisone-use and prednisone-avoidance groups). The large sample from FAERS allowed for those various immunosuppressant combinations to be compared. Comparisons of transplant rejection in the prednisone-use and prednisone-avoidance groups used the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the adjusted ROR (aROR), which controlled for differences in patient background. Results With the prednisone-use groups being set as the reference, ROR and aROR were calculated for the prednisone-avoidance groups. Various immunosuppressant combinations were evaluated, and in four patterns - (1) the combination of prednisone and tacrolimus, (2) the combination of prednisone, cyclosporine, and tacrolimus, (3) the combination of prednisone, tacrolimus, and basiliximab, and (4) the combination of prednisone and everolimus) - both the ROR and the aROR for transplant rejection in the prednisone-avoidance group were significantly <1.000. Conclusions This study identified effective immunosuppressant combinations for prednisone avoidance that were not associated with increased transplant rejection. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of prednisone avoidance is strengthened when combined with results from previous studies.

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.

Controversy Over Liver Transplantation or Resection for Neuroendocrine Liver Metastasis: Tumor Biology Cuts the Deal

BACKGROUND

In patients with neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM), liver transplantation (LT) is an alternative to liver resection (LR), although the choice of therapy remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we aim to provide novel insight in this dispute.

METHODS

Following a systematic literature search, 15 large international centers were contacted to provide comprehensive data on their patients after LR or LT for NELM. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method, while multivariable Cox regression served to identify factors influencing survival after either transplantation or resection. Inverse probability weighting and propensity score matching was used for analyses with balanced and equalized baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 455 patients were analyzed, including 230 after LR and 225 after LT, with a median follow-up of 97 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 85-110 months]. Multivariable analysis revealed G3 grading as a negative prognostic factor for LR [hazard ratio (HR)=2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.77, P =0.040], while G2 grading (HR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.15-5.52, P =0.021) and LT outside Milan criteria (HR=2.40, 95% CI: 1.16-4.92, P =0.018) were negative prognostic factors in transplanted patients. Inverse probability-weighted multivariate analyses revealed a distinct survival benefit after LT. Matched patients presented a median overall survival (OS) of 197 months (95% CI: 143-not reached) and a 73% 5-year OS after LT, and 119 months (95% CI: 74-133 months) and a 52.8% 5-year OS after LR (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, P =0.022). However, the survival benefit after LT was lost if patients were transplanted outside Milan criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicentric study in patients with NELM demonstrates a survival benefit of LT over LR. This benefit depends on adherence to selection criteria, in particular low-grade tumor biology and Milan criteria, and must be balanced against potential risks of LT.

Immunosuppressive Drugs in Liver Transplant: An Insight

Liver transplantation (LT) is the standard of care for end-stage liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the years, immunosuppression regimens have improved, resulting in enhanced graft and patient survival. At present, the side effects of immunosuppressive agents are a significant threat to post-LT quality of life and long-term outcome. The role of personalized immunosuppression is to reach a delicate balance between optimal immunosuppression and minimal side effects. Today, immunosuppression in LT is more of an art than a science. There are no validated markers for overimmunosuppression and underimmunosuppression, only a few drugs have therapeutic drug monitoring and immunosuppression regimens vary from center to center. The immunosuppressive agents are broadly classified into biological agents and pharmacological agents. Most regimens use multiple agents with different modes of action to reduce the dosage and minimize the toxicities. The calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-related toxicities are reduced by antibody induction or using mTOR inhibitor/antimetabolites as CNI sparing or CNI minimization strategies. Post-liver transplant immunosuppression has an intensive phase in the first three months when alloreactivity is high, followed by a maintenance phase when immunosuppression minimization protocols are implemented. Over time some patients achieve "tolerance," defined as the successful stopping of immunosuppression with good graft function and no indication of rejection. Cell-based therapy using immune cells with tolerogenic potential is the future and may permit complete withdrawal of immunosuppressive agents.

Recipient and Center Factors Associated With Immunosuppression Practice Beyond the First Year After Liver Transplantation and Impact on Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppression is a critical aspect of post-transplant management, yet practices at intermediate and late time points after liver transplantation (LT) are poorly characterized.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 11 326 adult first LT alone recipients between 2007 and 2016 was identified by linking United Network for Organ Sharing transplant data to Medicare administrative claims. The immunosuppression regimen was obtained from Medicare billing claims. Factors associated with calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) monotherapy at 1-, 3-, and 5-y post-LT were investigated using mixed-effects logistic regression. Center practice heterogeneity was evaluated. The association of immunosuppression regimen (time-updating) with patient and graft survival was studied.

RESULTS

CNI monotherapy was used in 51.9% at 1-y post-LT and 68.6% at 5-y post-LT. Center-specific rates ranged from 20.0%-79.9% to 15.4%-95.2%, respectively. CNI monotherapy at 1- and 3-y post-LT was less likely among Black recipients ( P = 0.027 and P = 0.015 versus White, respectively). CNI plus antimetabolite was associated with improved adjusted patient (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < 0.001) and graft (hazard ratio, 0.62; P < 0.001) survival versus CNI monotherapy. The benefit of CNI plus antimetabolite on patient and graft survival increased with older age.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first longitudinal analysis of LT immunosuppression practices among Medicare beneficiaries, a CNI plus antimetabolite approach led to improved outcomes. Significant center heterogeneity in practice was observed.

The optimal immunosuppression management to prevent early rejection after liver transplantation: A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

The optimal immunosuppression protocol to prevent early acute cellular rejection (ACR) after liver transplantation (LT) avoiding prolonged hospitalization and early hospital readmission is undefined.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most suitable immunosuppression regimen for inclusion in ERAS programs in order to minimize early ACR after LT and to provide expert panel recommendations DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Studies from January 2000 onward focusing on early ACR were included. Rates of early renal dysfunction and infection were evaluated. CRD42021245586 RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria; 23 randomized controlled trials, 14 retrospective or prospective observational comparative or noncomparative studies. Several sources of biases which potentially confound conclusions were identified: heterogeneity in immunosuppression protocols, higher serum tacrolimus levels than currently used in clinical practice, differences in the definition of ACR.

CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus is the standard immunosuppression after LT and can be used in combination with other drugs such as corticosteroids and MMF, and in association with anti-IL2 receptor antibody (IL2Ra) induction. (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Low dose or delayed introduction of tacrolimus in association with corticosteroids and MMF and/or anti-IL2Ra induction can be used to reduce acute kidney injury. (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Use of tacrolimus in association with corticosteroids and MMF and/or anti-IL2Ra induction does not lead to increased infection rates. (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak).

Safety of Tacrolimus Monotherapy within 12 Months after Liver Transplantation in the Era of Reduced Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil: National Registry Study

Tacrolimus monotherapy is accepted as a feasible option during early post-liver transplantation as per current international consensus guidelines. However, its effects in the recent era of reduced tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) remain unclear. Liver recipients who either received TAC monotherapy from the treatment onset or switched from TAC/MMF to TAC-mono within 12 months (TAC-mono group; n = 991) were chronologically matched to patients who continued to receive TAC/MMF (TAC/MMF group; n = 991) at the corresponding time points on time-conditional propensity scores. Outcomes within 12 months after matched time points were compared. Biopsy-proven rejection (TAC/MMF: 3.5% vs. TAC-mono: 2.6%; p = 0.381) and graft failure (0.2% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.082) were similar in both groups. However, the decline in eGFR was 3.1 mL/min/1.73 m² (95% CI: 0.8–5.3) greater at six months (p = 0.008) and 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m² (95% CI: −0.05–4.9) greater at 12 months (p = 0.048) after the matched time points in TAC-mono group than that in TAC/MMF group. TAC trough levels were also higher in the TAC-mono group throughout the study period. TAC-mono within 12 months after liver transplantation is immunologically safe. However, it can increase the required TAC dose and the decline in renal function than that in TAC/MMF combination therapy.

Immunosuppression in liver and intestinal transplantation

Immunosuppression handling plays a key role in the early and long-term results of transplantation. The development of multiple immunosuppressive drugs led to numerous clincial trials searching to reach the ideal regimen. Due to heterogeneity of the studied patient cohorts and flaws in many, even randomized controlled, study designs, the answer still stands out. Nowadays triple-drug immunosuppression containing a calcineurin inhibitor (preferentially tacrolimus), an antimetabolite (using mycophenolate moffettil or Azathioprine) and short-term steroids with or without induction therapy (using anti-IL2 receptor blocker or anti-lymphocytic serum) is the preferred option in both liver and intestinal transplantation. This chapter aims, based on a critical review of the definitions of rejection, corticoresistant rejection and standard immunosuppression to give some reflections on how to reach an optimal immunosuppressive status and to conduct trials allowing to draw solid conclusions. Endpoints of future trials should not anymore focus on biopsy proven, acute and chronic, rejection but also on graft and patient survival. Correlation between early- and long-term biologic, immunologic and histopathologic findings will be fundamental to reach in much more patients the status of operational tolerance.

Early use of everolimus improved renal function after adult deceased donor liver transplantation

Background

Tacrolimus (TAC) is a main therapy for liver transplantation (LT) patients, but it has side effects such as chronic nephrotoxicity that progressively aggravate renal function. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the renal function between a TAC group and a combination of everolimus and reduced TAC (EVR-TAC) group after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

Methods

The study comprised 131 patients who underwent DDLT between January 2013 and April 2018 at our institution. They received TAC or EVR-TAC after DDLT. Everolimus (EVR) was introduced between 1 and 6 months after DDLT.

Results

Thirty-six of 131 patients (27.5%) received EVR-TAC. The incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD; estimated glomerular filtration rate, <60 mL/1.73 m2) in the EVR-TAC group was higher than in the TAC group (25% vs. 8.4%; P=0.019). Increasing serum creatinine (n=23, 63.9%) was the most common cause for adding EVR to treatment of the posttransplant patients. There were no statistical differences in acute rejection and CKD between the two groups. The TAC trough level was significantly lower in the EVR-TAC group than in the TAC group, and the renal function of the EVR-TAC group was worse than that of the TAC group until 1 year after DDLT. However, the renal function of the EVR-TAC group improved and became similar to that of TAC group at 3 years posttransplant.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that EVR should be introduced as soon as possible after DDLT to reduce exposure to high doses of TAC to improve the renal function.

The real incidence of biliary tract complications after adult liver transplantation: the role of the prospective routine use of cholangiography during post-transplant follow-up

Biliary tract complications (BTCs) still burden liver transplantation (LT). The wide reporting variability highlights the absence of systematic screening. From 2000 to 2009, simultaneous liver biopsy and direct biliary visualization were prospectively performed in 242 recipients at 3 and 6 months (n = 212, 87.6%) or earlier when indicated (n = 30, 12.4%). Median follow-up was 148 (107-182) months. Seven patients (2.9%) experienced postprocedural morbidity. BTCs were initially diagnosed in 76 (31.4%) patients; 32 (42.1%) had neither clinical nor biological abnormalities. Acute cellular rejection (ACR) was present in 27 (11.2%) patients and in 6 (22.2%) BTC patients. Nine (3.7%) patients with normal initial cholangiography developed BTCs after 60 (30-135) months post-LT. BTCs directly lead to 7 (2.9%) re-transplantations and 14 (5.8%) deaths resulting in 18 (7.4%) allograft losses. Bile duct proliferation at 12-month biopsy proved an independent risk factor for graft loss (P = 0.005). Systematic biliary tract and allograft evaluation allows the incidence and extent of biliary lesions to be documented more precisely and to avoid erroneous treatment of ACR. The combination 'abnormal biliary tract-canalicular proliferation' is an indicator of worse graft outcome. BTCs are responsible for important delayed allograft and patient losses. These results underline the importance of life-long follow-up and appropriate timing for re-transplantation.

Impact of Induction Immunosuppression Strategies in Simultaneous Liver/Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

There is scant data on the use of induction immunosuppression for simultaneous liver/kidney transplantation (SLKT).

METHODS

We analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network registry from 1996 to 2016 to compare outcomes of SLKT, based on induction immunosuppression.

RESULTS

Of 5172 patients, 941 (18%) received T-cell depletion induction, 1635 (32%) received interleukin 2 receptor antagonist (IL2-RA), and 2596 (50%) received no induction (NI). At 5 years, patient survivals were 68% in the T-cell group, 74% in the IL2-RA group, and 71% in the NI group (P = 0.0006). Five-year liver and kidney allograft survivals were 67% and 64% in the T-cell group, 73% and 70% in the IL2-RA group, and 70% and 68% in the NI group (P = 0.001 and 0.003), respectively. On multivariate analysis, the type of induction had no impact on patient or allograft survival. Maintenance steroids and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) at discharge were associated with improved patient and graft survival (steroids: patient survival hazard ratio [HR] 0.37 [0.27-0.52], liver survival HR 0.43 [0.31-0.59], kidney survival HR 0.46 [0.34-0.63]; P < 0.0001, CNI: patient survival HR 0.3 [0.21-0.43], liver survival HR 0.3 [0.2-0.44], kidney survival HR 0.4 [0.26-0.59]; P < 0.0001). CNI maintenance in patients who received T-cell induction was associated with decreased patient, liver, and kidney allograft survivals (respective HR: 1.4 [1.1, 1.8]; 1.5 [1.1, 1.9]; 1.3 [1.08, 1.7]; P < 0.05) CONCLUSION.: Induction immunosuppression had no impact on patient and allograft survival in SLKT, while maintenance steroids and CNI were associated with improved patient and graft survivals. Given the inherent limitations of a registry analysis, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Immunosuppression in liver transplant

The increasing potency of immunosuppression (IS) agents resulted in significantly decreased rates of steroid resistant rejection and rejection related graft loss in liver transplantation (LT). Currently, more than two thirds of late mortality after LT is unrelated to graft function. However, the increased benefit of more potent IS drugs, coupled with the prolonged survival of transplant recipients led to longer patients exposure to these drugs and their unwanted adverse effects, creating a double-edged sword. In this article the authors describe the mechanism of action and the adverse effects of the most commonly used immunosuppressed drugs, and the most commonly used IS regimens for both induction and maintenance regimens. The balance between the ideal IS regimen to prevent rejection and the need to minimize the dose of IS drugs in order to prevent the adverse effects related to its use requires the knowledge of the science and the experience with the art of medicine. The different protocols aimed at protecting renal function and preventing the development of de novo cancer and metabolic syndrome are discussed here. The main causes of mortality late after liver transplant are associated with prolonged use of IS medications, and clear evidence exists about over-immunosuppression of recipients of liver transplant. The current status of strategies of IS minimization and withdrawal are reviewed in this article, with evaluation of its benefits and pitfalls.

Pregnancy Weight Gain as a Predictor of Fetal Wellbeing in Liver Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND Gestational weight gain (GWG) is an important index influencing perinatal outcomes. Inappropriate weight gain during pregnancy is strongly associated with multiple pregnancy complications. In pregnant liver transplant recipients whose risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes is already high, this aspect may be even more significant. The present study analyzed the gestational weight gain in female liver transplant recipients and its effect on neonatal complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cohort study of retrospective data was performed in the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw. There were 23 patients who fulfilled all inclusion criteria. The gestational weight gain was analyzed in the context of pre-pregnancy BMI, immunosuppression, and perinatal outcomes. RESULTS The preterm delivery rate was 39.13% and GWG increased according to the duration of pregnancy. The model adjusted to week of delivery revealed no association between weight gain and the length of pregnancy (p=0.82). GWG in liver transplant recipients did not affect hypotrophy incidence, adverse perinatal outcomes, or caesarian delivery rate. A positive correlation between GWG and neonatal birth weight was observed (p=0.06). One patient, with coexisting PIH, had a stillbirth at 23 weeks. In all other cases, the 5-min Apgar score was 10 points. CONCLUSIONS Current obstetrical recommendations do not consider patients with chronic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment. Proper counselling and preparing liver transplant recipients for pregnancy, especially optimizing maternal pre-pregnancy BMI, may be an important element in improving perinatal outcomes by lowering the risk of maternal complications. GWG itself is not relevant as a predictor of term gestation, but it might be important in achieving eutrophic fetus growth.

Alpha-fetoprotein and 18F-FDG standard uptake value predict tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: Preliminary experience

BACKGROUND

Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is regarded as a contraindication for liver transplantation (LT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, some of these patients may have a favorable prognosis after LT. In this study, we evaluated the biological behavior of HCC with PVTT using tumor biomarker (alpha-fetoprotein, AFP) and ¹⁸F-FDG positron emission tomography (tumor standard uptake value) to identify a subset of patients who may be suitable for LT.

METHODS

Seventy-five HCC-PVTT liver recipients transplanted during February 2016 and June 2018 were analyzed. Different pre-transplant prognostic factors were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. PVTT status was identified following Vp classification (Vp1-Vp4).

RESULTS

Three-year recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates were 40% and 65.4% in Vp2-Vp3 PVTT patients, 21.4% and 30.6% in Vp4 PVTT patients (P < 0.05). Total tumor diameter >8 cm, pre-transplant AFP level >1000 ng/mL and intrahepatic tumor maximal standard uptake value (SUVmax-tumor >5) were independent risk factors for HCC recurrence and overall survival after LT in Vp2-3 PVTT patients. Low risk patients were defined as total tumor diameter ≤8 cm; or if total tumor diameter more than 8 cm, with both pre-transplant AFP level less than 1000 ng/mL and intrahepatic tumor SUVmax less than 5, simultaneously. Twenty-two Vp2-3 PVTT HCC patients (46.8%) were identified as low risk patients, and their 3-year recurrence-free and overall survival rates were 67.6% and 95.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with segmental or lobar PVTT and biologically favorable tumors defined by AFP and ¹⁸F-FDG SUVmax might be suitable for LT.

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.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after acute liver allograft rejection treatment: A multicenter European experience

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, several risk factors for the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver transplantation (LT) have been investigated. However, the impact of two important drivers of oncogenesis, namely the immunosuppression and the treatment of acute cellular rejection (ACR) have been marginally addressed. This study aimed at investigating the impact of ACR treatment on the incidence of tumor recurrence in a large European HCC-LT population.

METHODS

Seven hundred and eighty-one adult patients transplanted between February 1, 1985 and June 30, 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. After propensity score match, 116 patients treated for ACR using steroid boluses were compared with 115 patients who did not present any ACR or a histologic but clinical irrelevant ACR.

RESULTS

Steroid boluses treated patients had a 18-fold higher overall incidence of HCC recurrence than those non-treated patients (16.4% vs. 0.9%; P<0.0001). At multivariate Cox regression analysis, steroid boluses used to treat ACR were an independent risk factor for HCC recurrence (HR=14.2; 95% CI: 1.8-110.4; P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to treat ACR as well as to reinforce immunosuppression load should be cautiously taken in view of the presented results. Prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the clinical impact of immunosuppression on HCC recurrence after transplantation.

Secondary non-resectable liver tumors: A single-center living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation case series

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has gained a place in the therapeutic algorithm of well-selected patients harbouring non-resectable secondary liver tumors. Living-donor LT (LDLT) might represent a valuable means to further expand this indication for LT.

METHODS

Between 1985 and 2016, twenty-two adults were transplanted because of neuroendocrine (n = 18, 82%) and colorectal metastases (n = 4, 18%); 50% received DDLT and 50% LDLT. In LDLT, 4 (36%) right and 7 (64%) left grafts were used; the median graft-to-recipient-weight ratios (GRWR) were 1.03% (IQR 0.86%-1.30%) and 0.59% (IQR 0.51%-0.91%), respectively. Median post-LT follow-up was 64 months (IQR 17-107) in the DDLT group and 40 months (IQR 35-116) in the LDLT group. DDLT and LDLT recipients were compared in terms of overall survival, graft survival, postoperative complications and recurrence.

RESULTS

The 1- and 5-year actuarial patient survivals were 82% and 55% after DDLT, 100% and 100% after LDLT, respectively (P < 0.01). One- and 5-year actuarial graft survivals were 73% and 36% after DDLT, 91% and 91% after LDLT (P < 0.01). The outcomes of right or left LDLT were comparable. Donor hepatectomy proved safe, and one donor experienced a Clavien IIIb complication. Bilirubin peak was significantly lower after left hepatectomy compared with that after right hepatectomy [1.3 (IQR 1.2-2.2) vs. 3.3 (IQR 2.3-5.2) mg/dL; P = 0.02].

CONCLUSIONS

The more recent LDLT series compared favorably to our DDLT series in the treatment of secondary liver malignancies. The absence of portal hypertension and the use of smaller left grafts make recipient and donor surgeries safe. The safety of the procedures and lack of interference with the scarce allograft pool are expected to lead to a more frequent use of LDLT in the field of transplant oncology.

Outcomes of immunosuppression minimization and withdrawal early after liver transplantation

The Immune Tolerance Network ITN030ST A-WISH assessed immunosuppression withdrawal in liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C or nonimmune nonviral liver disease. Of 275 recipients enrolled before transplantation, 95 were randomly assigned 4:1 to withdrawal (n = 77) or maintenance (n = 18) 1- to 2-years posttransplant. Randomization eligibility criteria included stable immunosuppression monotherapy; adequate liver and kidney function; ≤Stage 2 Ishak fibrosis; and absence of rejection on biopsy. Immunosuppression withdrawal followed an 8-step reduction algorithm with ≥8 weeks per level. Fifty-two of 77 subjects (67.5%) reduced to ≤50% of baseline dose, and 10 of 77 (13.0%) discontinued all immunosuppression for ≥1 year. Acute rejection and/or abnormal liver tests were treated with increased immunosuppression; 5 of 32 rejection episodes required a methylprednisolone bolus. The composite end point (death or graft loss; grade 4 secondary malignancy or opportunistic infection; Ishak stage ≥3; or >25% decrease in glomerular filtration rate within 24 months of randomization) occurred in 12 of 66 (18%) and 4 of 13 (31%) subjects in the withdrawal and maintenance groups. Early immunosuppression minimization is feasible in selected liver recipients, while complete withdrawal is successful in only a small proportion. The composite end point comparison was inconclusive for noninferiority of the withdrawal to the maintenance group.

Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation: The experience of the Université catholique de Louvain

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the treatment for end-stage liver diseases and well-selected malignancies. The allograft shortage may be alleviated with living donation. The initial UCLouvain experience of adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is presented.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 64 adult-to-adult LDLTs performed at our institution between 1998 and 2016 was conducted. The median age of 29 (45.3%) females and 35 (54.7%) males was 50.2 years (interquartile range, IQR 32.9-57.5). Twenty-two (34.4%) recipients had no portal hypertension. Three (4.7%) patients had a benign and 33 (51.6%) a malignant tumor [19 (29.7%) hepatocellular cancer, 11 (17.2%) secondary cancer and one (1.6%) each hemangioendothelioma, hepatoblastoma and embryonal liver sarcoma]. Median donor and recipient follow-ups were 93 months (IQR 41-159) and 39 months (22-91), respectively.

RESULTS

Right and left hemi-livers were implanted in 39 (60.9%) and 25 (39.1%) cases, respectively. Median weights of right- and left-liver were 810 g (IQR 730-940) and 454 g (IQR 394-534), respectively. Graft-to-recipient weight ratios (GRWRs) were 1.17% (right, IQR 0.98%-1.4%) and 0.77% (left, 0.59%-0.95%). One- and five-year patient survivals were 85% and 71% (right) vs. 84% and 58% (left), respectively. One- and five-year graft survivals were 74% and 61% (right) vs. 76% and 53% (left), respectively. The patient and graft survival of right and left grafts and of very small (<0.6%), small (0.6%-0.79%) and large (≥0.8%) GRWR were similar. Survival of very small grafts was 86% and 86% at 3- and 12-month. No donor died while five (7.8%) developed a Clavien-Dindo complication IIIa, IIIb or IV. Recipient morbidity consisted mainly of biliary and vascular complications; three (4.7%) recipients developed a small-for-size syndrome according to the Kyushu criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult-to-adult LDLT is a demanding procedure that widens therapeutic possibilities of many hepatobiliary diseases. The donor procedure can be done safely with low morbidity. The recipient operation carries a major morbidity indicating an important learning curve. Shifting the risk from the donor to the recipient, by moving from the larger right-liver to the smaller left-liver grafts, should be further explored as this policy makes donor hepatectomy safer and may stimulate the development of transplant oncology.

International Liver Transplantation Society Consensus Statement on Immunosuppression in Liver Transplant Recipients

Effective immunosupression management is central to achieving optimal outcomes in liver transplant recipients. Current immunosuppression regimens and agents are highly effective in minimizing graft loss due to acute and chronic rejection but can also produce a substantial array of toxicities. The utilization of immunosuppression varies widely, contributing to the wide disparities in posttransplant outcomes reported between transplant centers. The International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) convened a consensus conference, comprised of a global panel of expert hepatologists, transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and pharmacologists to review the literature and experience pertaining to immunosuppression management to develop guidelines on key aspects of immunosuppression. The consensus findings and recommendations of the ILTS Consensus guidelines on immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients are presented in this article.

Longterm Survival and Cost-Effectiveness of Immunosuppression Withdrawal After Liver Transplantation

Lifelong immunosuppression (IS) after liver transplantation is associated with severe adverse effects and increased recipients' morbidity and mortality. Clinical operational tolerance has been reported in up to 40% in very well-selected recipients. Longterm survival and cost savings within the Italian national health system in operational tolerant recipients is reported. Seventy-five liver recipients were enrolled for IS withdrawal at our institution during the period from April 1998 to December 2015. The study population comprised 32 (42.7%) tolerant patients; 41 (54.7%) nontolerant patients needing uptake of IS after clinical or biopsy-proven rejection; and 2 (2.7%) immediate nontolerant patients who developed early rejection after the first drug reduction. The primary endpoint of the study was to assess the longterm patients and graft outcome; the secondary endpoint was the assessment of cost savings in the context of IS withdrawal. The follow-up was 95.0 months (interquartile range, 22.5-108.5 months). IS withdrawal did not result in patient nor graft loss and resulted in a major cost savings reaching about €630,000. In conclusion, longterm IS withdrawal represents a remarkable cost savings in the health care of liver recipients without exposing them to graft loss.

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.

Modification of immunosuppressive therapy as risk factor for complications after liver transplantation

Management of complications post-liver transplantation (LT) includes immunosuppressive manipulations with the aim to reduce the overall burden of immunologic suppression and compensate for renal, cardiovascular, metabolic toxicities, and for the increased oncologic risk. Two approaches can be implemented to reduce immunosuppression-related adverse events: upfront schedules tailored to the pretransplant individual patient's risk profile versus downstream modifications in the event of immunosuppression-related complications. Upfront strategies are supported by evidence originating from prospective randomized trials and consist of triple/quadruple schedules whereby calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-exposure is reduced with combination of anti-CD25 monoclonal antibodies, antimetabolites and corticosteroids. Quadruple regimens allow for staggering of CNI introduction and higher renal function in the early term, but their superiority in the long term has not yet been established. A more recent upfront schedule contemplates early (4 weeks) introduction of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) everolimus and allows for reduction of CNI up to 4 years posttransplantation. Incorporation of mTORi has the potential to prolong time to recurrence for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, as suggested by the available evidence, downstream immunosuppressive manipulations are more frequently adopted in clinical practice. These encompass CNI replacement and immunosuppression withdrawal. Switching CNI to mTORi monotherapy is the option most commonly adopted to relieve renal function and compensate for posttransplant malignancies. Its impact is dependent on interval from transplantation and underlying severity of renal impairment. Introduction of mTORi is associated with longer overall survival for patients with extrahepatic posttransplant malignancies, but results are awaited for recurrences of hepatocellular carcinoma. Immunosuppression withdrawal seems feasible (70%) in very long term survivors (>10 years), but is not associated with reversal of immunosuppression-related complications. Awaiting novel immunosuppressive drug categories, integration of upfront strategies with the aim to reduce CNI-exposure and a low threshold for adjustment in the posttransplant course are both advisable to improve long-term outcomes of LT.

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.

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.

Immunosuppression Modifications Based on an Immune Response Assay: Results of a Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

An immune function assay shows promise for identifying solid organ recipients at risk for infection or rejection. The following randomized prospective study was designed to assess the clinical benefits of adjusting immunosuppressive therapy in liver recipients based on immune function assay results.

METHODS

Adult liver recipients were randomized to standard practice (control group; n = 102) or serial immune function testing (interventional group; n = 100) performed with a commercially available in vitro diagnostic assay (ImmuKnow; Viracor-IBT Laboratories, Lee's Summit, MO) before transplantation, immediately after surgery and at day 1, weeks 1 to 4, 6, and 8, and months 3 to 6, 9, and 12. The assay was repeated within 7 days of suspected/confirmed rejection/infection and within 1 week after event resolution.

RESULTS

Based on immune function values, tacrolimus doses were reduced 25% when values were less than 130 ng/mL adenosine triphosphate (low immune cell response) and increased 25% when values were greater than 450 ng/mL adenosine triphosphate (strong immune cell response). The 1-year patient survival was significantly higher in the interventional arm (95% vs 82%; P < 0.01) and the incidence of infections longer than 14 days after transplantation was significantly lower among patients in the interventional arm (42.0% vs. 54.9%, P < 0.05). The difference in infection rates was because of lower bacterial (32% vs 46%; P < 0.05) and fungal infection (2% vs 11%; P < 0.05). Among recipients without adverse events, the study group had lower tacrolimus dosages and blood levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Immune function testing provided additional data which helped optimize immunosuppression and improve patient outcomes.

Withdrawal of immunosuppression in liver transplantation and the mechanism of tolerance

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppression reagents have side effects and cause considerable long-term morbidity and mortality in patients after liver transplantation. Sufficient evidences showed that minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression reagents does not deteriorate the recipient's immune response and physiological function and therefore, is feasible in some recipients of liver transplantation. However, the mechanisms are not clear. The present review was to update the current status of immunosuppression in liver transplantation and the mechanism of minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression in liver recipients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched articles in English on minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression in liver transplantation in PubMed. We focused on the basic mechanisms of immune tolerance in liver transplantation. Studies on immunosuppression minimization or withdrawal protocols and biomarker in tolerant recipients were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression can be achieved by the induction of immune tolerance, which may not be permanent and can be affected by various factors. However, accurately evaluating immune status post-transplant is a prerequisite to achieve individualized immunosuppression. Numerous mechanisms for immune tolerance have been found, including immunophenotypic shift of memory CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cell subsets. Activation of the inflammasome through apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a C-terminal caspase recruitment domain (ASC) in dendritic cells is associated with rejection after liver transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimization or withdrawal of immunosuppression can be achieved by the induction of immune tolerance via different mechanisms. This process could be affected by immunophenotypic shift of memory CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cell subsets, which may be correlated with activation of the inflammasome through ASC in dendritic cells.

Is minimal, [almost] steroid-free immunosuppression a safe approach in adult liver transplantation? Long-term outcome of a prospective, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, investigator-driven study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety of minimal immunosuppression (IS) in liver transplantation (LT).

BACKGROUND

The lack of long-term follow-up studies, including pathologic data, has led to a protean handling of IS in LT.

METHODS

Between February 2000 and September 2004, 156 adults were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled minimization trial comparing tacrolimus placebo (TAC-PLAC) and TAC short-term steroid (TAC-STER) IS. All patients had a minimum clinical, biochemical, and histological follow-up of 5 years.

RESULTS

Five-year actual patient and graft survival rates in TAC-PLAC and TAC-STER groups were 78.1% and 82.1% (P=0.89) and 74.2% and 76.9% (P=0.90), respectively. Five-year biopsies were available in 112 (89.6%) of 125 survivors. Twelve patients refused a biopsy because of their excellent evolution; tissue material was insufficient in 1 patient; 11 had normal liver tests; and 2 patients had developed alcoholic and secondary biliary cirrhosis. Histology was normal in 44 (39.3%) patients; 35 (31.3%) had disease recurrence. The remaining biopsies showed nonspecific chronic hepatitis (14.3%), mild inflammatory infiltrates (10.7%), and steatosis (3.5%). All findings were equally distributed between both groups. In each group, 3 patients (4.8%) presented with acute cellular rejection after the first year and only 1 (0.9%) TAC-PLAC patient developed chronic rejection after IS withdrawal because of pneumonitis. Arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, hypercholesterolemia, gout, and obesity were equally low in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent long-term results can be obtained under minimal IS and absence of steroids. TAC-based monotherapy is feasible in most adult liver recipients until 5 years of follow-up.

Lack of agreement for defining 'clinical suspicion of rejection' in liver transplantation: a model to select candidates for liver biopsy

The gold standard to diagnose acute cellular rejection (ACR) after liver transplantation (LT) is histological evaluation, but there is no consensus to select patients for liver biopsy. We aimed to evaluate the agreement among clinicians to select candidates for liver biopsy early after LT. From a protocol biopsy population (n = 690), we randomly selected 100 LT patients in whom the biopsy was taken 7-10 days after LT. The clinical information between LT and protocol biopsy was given to nine clinicians from three transplant centres who decided whether a liver biopsy was needed. The agreement among clinicians to select candidates for liver biopsy was poor: κ = 0.06-0.62, being κ < 0.40 in 76% of comparisons. The concordance between indication for liver biopsy and moderate-severe ACR in the protocol biopsy was κ < 0.30 in all cases. A multivariate model based on the product age-by-MELD (OR = 0.81; P = 0.013), delta eosinophils (OR = 1.5; P = 0.002) and mean tacrolimus trough concentrations <6 ng/ml within the prior 4 days (OR = 11.4; P = 0.047) had an AUROC = 0.84 to diagnose moderate-severe histological ACR. In conclusion, the agreement among clinicians to select patients for liver biopsy is very poor. If further validated the proposed model would provide an objective method to select candidates for liver biopsy after LT.

Is there such a thing as protocol immunosuppression in liver transplantation?

Protocol immunosuppression in liver transplantation is largely an outdated concept. Immunosuppression is now personalized to the individual patient on the basis of several factors including underlying etiology of original liver disease (e.g., HCV, hepatocellular carcinoma), renal function, metabolic co-morbidities and the patient's immunological state. These include omission of corticosteroids in HCV infection and those with major metabolic risk factors, the minimization of calcineurin inhibitors in the presence of renal dysfunction and the use of mTOR inhibitors in patients with malignancy. The basis for such decision-making is discussed in this editorial.

Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: An evidence-based review

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and two meta-analyses were reviewed. With respect to adult patients undergoing first orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), steroid replacement resulted in fewer cases of overall acute rejection in the corticosteroid free-immunosuppression arm. Initial steroid administration for two weeks and early tacrolimus monotherapy is a feasible immunosuppression regimen without steroid replacement, although further investigations are needed in view of chronic rejections. No significant differences were noted between the treatment groups in terms of patient and graft survival independently of steroid replacement. Renal insufficiency, de novo hypertension, neurological disorders and infectious complications did not differ significantly among steroid and steroid-free groups. Diabetes mellitus, cholesterol levels and cytomegalovirus infection are more frequent in patients within the steroid group. With respect to diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia, the difference was independent of steroid replacement. In relation to transplanted hepatitis C virus patients, mycophenolate mofetil does not appear to have a significant antiviral effect despite early reports. Male gender of donors and recipients, living donors, cold ischemia times, acute rejection, and early histological recurrence were related to the development of advanced hepatitis. There is sufficient scientific clinical evidence advocating avoidance of the ab initio use of steroids in OLT.

Monotherapy with tacrolimus for heart and liver transplant: a case report

BACKGROUND

Multiple-organ transplantation cases are rare, partly due to the shortage of donor organs. However, recent reports of outcomes of multiple-organ transplantations show encouraging survival rates for recipients as compared to single-organ transplant recipients.

CASE REPORT

A 33-year-old female who was a known hepatitis B carrier and who had been diagnosed with peripartum dilated cardiomyopathy was experiencing end-stage heart failure. The patient received orthotopic heart transplantation. After heart transplantation, the recipient received prednisolone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate mofetil for immunosuppressive therapy. Seventy-one days later, the recipient began to develop progressive jaundice, ascites, and hepatoencephalopathy and was re-admitted to the hospital. Fulminant hepatitis was diagnosed. She was referred for emergency cadaveric liver transplantation 110 days after the heart transplantation because of her critical condition. After transplantation, she was improved and her condition maintained by a single immunosuppressive therapy, tacrolimus, with mean dose of 0.06 mg/kg/d.

CONCLUSION

We presented a case that was complicated by fulminant hepatitis after heart transplantation and successfully rescued by liver transplantation.

Current strategies for immunosuppression following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

New strategies for immunosuppression (IS) after liver transplantation (LTx) are in part responsible for the increased patient and graft survival seen over time. With a few basic exceptions-notably the continued use of steroids and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs)-IS drugs and regimens being used today are different from those used 30 years ago. While graft loss due to acute or chronic rejection has become rare, the side effect burden of IS drugs exerts a significant toll on patients.

CONCEPTS/TRENDS

CNIs continue to form the backbone of IS regimens, although their use is hampered by nephrotoxicity and other adverse effects. Consequently, a variety of CNI reduction or withdrawal strategies have formed the basis of clinical trials or entered into clinical practice. These trials have included the use of everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, and anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies. Basiliximab, as well as other lymphocyte nondepleting and depleting agents, have shown benefit in induction regimens.

SUMMARY

Along with steroid reduction or elimination, current strategies for IS after LTx continue to explore novel combinations of agents, with an aim toward striking a balance between diminution of rejection and the need for avoiding adverse effects of the IS drugs. Long-term maintenance strategies are also discussed in this review, as is development of tolerance and antibody-mediated rejection.

Immunosuppression minimization vs. complete drug withdrawal in liver transplantation

Despite the increase in long-term survival, liver transplant recipients still exhibit higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. This is in part attributed to the lifelong administration of immunosuppression and its associated side effects. Several studies reported in the last decades have evaluated the impact of immunosuppression minimization in liver transplant recipients, but results have been inconsistent due to the heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient sample sizes. On the other hand, complete immunosuppression withdrawal has proven to be feasible in approximately 20% of carefully selected liver transplant recipients, especially in older patients and those with longer duration after transplantation. The long-term risks and clinical benefits of this strategy, however, also need to be clarified. As a consequence, and despite the general perception that a large proportion of liver recipients are over-immunosuppressed, it is currently not possible to derive evidence-based guidelines on how to manage long-term immunosuppression to improve clinical outcomes. Large clinical trials of drug minimization and/or withdrawal focused on clinically-relevant long-term outcomes are required. Development of personalized medicine tools and a deeper understanding of the pathogenesis of idiopathic inflammatory graft lesions will be pre-requisites to achieve these goals.

Minimalization of immunosuppression in liver transplantation: steps from 'how' to 'now'. Interview by Emily Reeve

From the very start of his surgical career, Jan Lerut was involved in organ transplantation. This interest resulted in transplantation fellowships at the University Paris-Sud - Centre Hépatobiliaire under the lead of Professor Bismuth and at the Pittsburgh Medical Center under the lead of Professor Starzl. He was director of the abdominal transplant program at the Inselspital University of Bern from 1987 to 1991. Currently, he is Professor of Surgery, Director of the Starzl Abdominal Transplant Unit of the University Hospitals Saint Luc of the Université Catholique de Louvain and director of the Université Catholique de Louvain Transplant Center in Brussels. He is also director of the department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery at the same university. He has served as president of the Belgian Society of Transplantation, chairman of the Eurotransplant Liver Allocation Committee and president of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. Under his presidency over the Eurotransplant Liver Allocation Committee, the Model for End stage Liver Disease system was introduced. His presidency at the European Society for Organ Transplantation was devoted to the broadening of the European transplant community and to the development of a master educational program in the field of transplantation. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles, authored 24 book chapters and 24 scientific films. His research interests focus on the development of technical refinements in liver transplantation and on the use of minimal immunosuppression and tolerance induction in liver transplantation.

Hepatocellular cancer and liver transplantation: a Western experience

Orthotopic liver transplantation is the preferred treatment option in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma developing in chronic liver disease. Unfortunately, based on classical transplantation criteria (Milan criteria), only a minority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are candidate to orthotopic liver transplantation. Major improvements in treatment strategy and surgical technique including the use of neoadjuvant locoregional therapies and progresses of post-transplant immunosuppressive treatment have contributed to safely expand transplantation criteria preserving acceptable surgical morbidity-mortality and good oncologic outcome. Further extension of transplantation criteria may have advantages including an increase in the number of transplant candidates and improvement of the prognosis of the disease and also disadvantages including an increase of surgical morbidity and deterioration of global oncologic outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. In the future, identification of imaging or molecular prognostic markers could help to better define transplantation criteria.

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.

Tacrolimus trough levels, rejection and renal impairment in liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We hypothesized that current trough concentrations of tacrolimus after liver transplantation are set too high, considering that clinical consequences of rejection are not severe while side effects are increased.We systematically reviewed 64 studies (32 randomized controlled trials and 32 observational studies) to determine how lower tacrolimus trough concentrations than currently recommended affect acute rejection rates and renal impairment. Among randomized trials the mean of tacrolimus trough concentration during the first month was positively correlated with renal impairment within 1 year (r = 0.73; p = 0.003), but not with acute rejection, either defined using protocol biopsies (r = -0.37; p = 0.32) or not (r = 0.11; p = 0.49). A meta-analysis of randomized trials directly comparing tacrolimus trough concentrations (five trials for acute rejection [n = 957] and two trials for renal impairment [n = 712]) showed that "reduced tacrolimus" trough concentrations (<10 ng/mL) within the first month after liver transplantation were associated with less renal impairment at 1 year (RR = 0.51 [0.38-0.69]), with no significant influence on acute rejection (RR = 0.92 [0.65-1.31]) compared to "conventional tacrolimus" trough levels (>10 ng/mL). Lower trough concentrations of tacrolimus (6-10 ng/mL during the first month) would be more appropriate after liver transplantation. Regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry should allow changes of regulatory drug information.