The road map toward an hepatitis C virus-free transplant population

Recompensation of cirrhosis in candidates of transplant: Tips and tricks for delisting

Liver transplantation (LT) is the most successful treatment for patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The availability of effective and safe etiological treatments has altered the natural history of decompensated cirrhosis. Recently, the concept of recompensation has been defined. Patients who achieve recompensation may be removed from the waiting list for LT. Therefore, achieving an etiological cure is the cornerstone in the treatment of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. However, most patients improve their liver function after an etiologic cure, and only a proportion of patients achieve true recompensation after an etiological cure. Some patients maintain a condition of "MELD purgatory," that is, an improvement in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score without relevant clinical improvement that prevents delisting and may be even detrimental because lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score delays LT. Herein, we review the available evidence regarding recompensation and the management of recompensated patients on the waiting list for LT.

Effectiveness of Direct-acting Agents After Liver Transplantation and Regression of Biomarkers Post-HCV Treatment: A Real-life Study in Rio de Janeiro

BACKGROUND

Data concerning hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment using direct-acting agents (DAAs) post liver transplantation (LT) remains scarce in low- and average-income countries.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of post-LT HCV treatment using DAAs in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), and to assess the course of hepatic biomarkers after sustained virological response (SVR).

METHODS

Data from LT recipients with recurrent HCV treated using DAAs was retrospectively analyzed. HCV was defined by detectable HCV-RNA with elevated aminotransferases and/or histological signs of infection on liver biopsy post LT. SVR was defined as undetectable HCV-RNA 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Aspartate-to-Platelet Ratio Index (APRI) and Fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4) were calculated before treatment and after SVR.

RESULTS

116 patients (63% male, median age 62 years, 75% genotype 1 and 62% with hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] prior to LT) were included. Cirrhosis was identified in the allograft of 21 subjects (18%). The overall SVR was 96.6% without differences in SVR proportion according to clinical/demographic characteristics, genotype or presence of cirrhosis. SVR rates were similar in individuals with and without HCC pre-LT (95.8% [95% CI: 87.6-98.7] vs. 97.7% [95% CI: 85.0-99.7%], p = 0.588). No serious adverse events were observed and the use of ribavirin was associated with at least one adverse event (OR = 8.71 [95% CI: 3.17-23.99]). SVR was associated with regression of APRI (OR = 26.00 [95% CI 4.27-1065.94]) and FIB-4 (OR = 15.00 [95% CI: 2.30-631.47]).

CONCLUSION

Post-LT HCV treatment with DAAs was safe and effective and associated with a significant decrease in hepatic biomarker levels after SVR.

Future challenges in gastroenterology and hepatology, between innovations and unmet needs: A SIGE Young Editorial Board's perspective

Gastroenterology, Digestive Endoscopy and Hepatology have faced significant improvements in terms of diagnosis and therapy in the last decades. However, many fields still remain poorly explored, and many questions unanswered. Moreover, basic-science, as well as translational and clinical discoveries, together with technology advancement will determine further steps toward a better, refined care for many gastroenterological disorders in the future. Therefore, the Young Investigators of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE) joined together, offering a perspective on major future innovations in some hot clinical topics in Gastroenterology, Endoscopy, and Hepatology, as well as the current pitfalls and the grey zones.

An Essential Guide for Managing Post-Liver Transplant Patients: What Primary Care Physicians Should Know

With long-term survival after liver transplantation becoming the rule, care for medical problems arising over time in liver-transplanted patients gained increasing importance. The most common causes of death occurring more than 1 year after liver transplantation are unrelated to liver diseases and facilitated by immunosuppressive treatments; examples are malignancies, renal failure, and cardiovascular, metabolic, and infectious diseases. Recipients receive life-long follow-up care at transplant centers, however, the increasing number of liver-transplanted patients is saturating the health care supply that transplant centers have to offer. Primary care physicians are increasingly exposed to liver-transplanted patients, even in the early periods after transplant, and an understanding of the most common risks and complications faced by these patients would enhance their care. This article reviews the long-term care of liver transplant recipients, emphasizing the key internal medicine-related issues that should be known by primary care physicians. A specific section is devoted to implementing strategies to involve these physicians in the long-term follow-up of liver-transplanted patients in close collaboration with transplant hepatologists.

Evolution of Liver Transplantation in Kazakhstan: Two-Era Experience of a Single Center, the First Report

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation has been performed in Kazakhstan since 2011. The present study aimed to analyze the outcomes of the most experienced liver transplant center in Kazakhstan.

METHODS

Between December 2011 and December 2018, 131 liver transplantations were performed at A.N. Syzganov's National Scientific Center of Surgery. The clinical data of 88 adult patients who underwent living donor liver transplantations from December 2011 to December 2017 were analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on the periods in which the procedure was performed: the early era (2011-2014; n = 25) and the late era (2015-2017; n = 63). The clinical course and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the characteristics of the recipients. The patients who were treated during the late era had significantly better survival rates compared with the early era (1 year, 90.5%; 3 year, 79.6%; vs 1 year, 67.7%; 3 year 63.3%; P < .05). Right lobe grafts were used significantly more frequently during the late era (P < .05), while splenectomy was indicated significantly less frequently (P < .05). We also noted a decrease in the complication rate, including early postoperative mortality (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 7 years, the liver transplant program has been established, and the operative techniques used in living donor liver transplant have changed dramatically. Patient survival has been improving with increased experience.