Effects of mycophenolate mofetil introduction in liver transplant patients: results from an observational, non-interventional, multicenter study (LOBSTER)

A cost-utility analysis of prolonged-release tacrolimus relative to immediate-release tacrolimus and ciclosporin in liver transplant recipients in the UK

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the relative efficacy of CNIs ciclosporin, prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus, and immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus in adult liver transplant recipients based on randomized and large observational trials published since 2000. Based on the NMA findings, the present study evaluated the cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin or IR tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of immunosuppressive regimens in liver transplant recipients, capturing costs associated with immunosuppression, retransplantation, acute rejection (AR), and cytomegalovirus infection. Mortality, graft loss, and AR odds ratios were derived from the NMA. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and the NHS National Tariff and expressed in 2016 pounds sterling. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Over 25 years, PR tacrolimus resulted in increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Relative to ciclosporin, QALE increased by 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with PR tacrolimus while costs increased by GBP £4645, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3962 per QALY gained. Relative to IR tacrolimus, QALE increased by 0.78 QALYs and costs by £1474, resulting in an ICER of £1889 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed the analysis to be most sensitive to dosing assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a UK-specific analysis of the projected cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, PR tacrolimus was cost-effective, improving life expectancy and QALE relative to both IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, yielding ICERs below £20 000 per QALY gained. The main limitations of the study were data source heterogeneity and omitting the economic and clinical effects of treating aspects of recurrent liver disease.

Protecting the Kidney in Liver Transplant Recipients: Practice-Based Recommendations From the American Society of Transplantation Liver and Intestine Community of Practice

Both acute and chronic kidney disease are common after liver transplantation and result in significant morbidity and mortality. The introduction of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score has directly correlated with an increased prevalence of perioperative renal dysfunction and the number of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantations performed. Kidney dysfunction in this population is typically multifactorial and related to preexisting conditions, pretransplantation renal injury, perioperative events, and posttransplantation nephrotoxic immunosuppressive therapies. The management of kidney disease after liver transplantation is challenging, as by the time the serum creatinine level is significantly elevated, few interventions affect the course of progression. Also, immunological factors such as antibody-mediated kidney rejection have become of greater interest given the rising liver-kidney transplant population. Therefore, this review, assembled by experts in the field and endorsed by the American Society of Transplantation Liver and Intestine Community of Practice, provides a critical assessment of measures of renal function and interventions aimed at preserving renal function early and late after liver and simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation. Key points and practice-based recommendations for the prevention and management of kidney injury in this population are provided to offer guidance for clinicians and identify gaps in knowledge for future investigations.

Liver transplantation for malignancy: Current treatment strategies and future perspectives

In 1967, Starzl et al performed the first successful liver transplantation for a patient diagnosed with hepatoblastoma. In the following, liver transplantation was considered ideal for complete tumor resection and potential cure from primary hepatic malignancies. Several reports of liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancer however showed disappointing results and the strategy was soon dismissed. In 1996, Mazzaferro et al introduced the Milan criteria, offering liver transplantation to patients diagnosed with limited hepatocellular carcinoma. Since then, liver transplantation for malignant disease is an ongoing subject of preclinical and clinical research. In this context, several aspects must be considered: (1) Given the shortage of deceased-donor organs, long-term overall and disease free survival should be comparable with results obtained in patients transplanted for non-malignant disease; (2) In this regard, living-donor liver transplantation may in selected patients help to solve the ethical dilemma of optimal individual patient treatment vs organ allocation justice; and (3) Ongoing research focusing on perioperative therapy and anti-proliferative immunosuppressive regimens may further reduce tumor recurrence in patients transplanted for malignant disease and thus improve overall survival. The present review gives an overview of current indications and future perspectives of liver transplantation for malignant disease.

Overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment option for patients with irrevocable acute or chronic liver failure. In the last four decades, liver transplantation has developed from an experimental approach with a very high mortality to an almost routine procedure with good short- and long-term survival rates. Here, we present an up-to-date overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation. It is shown how the evaluation of a candidate and finally listing for transplantation has to be performed in a multidisciplinary setting. Meticulous listing, timing, and organ allocation are the crucial factors to achieve an optimal outcome for the individual patient on the one hand, and reasonably using the limited deceased donor pool on the other hand. Living-donor liver transplantation is demanding but necessarily increasing. Because patients after liver transplantation need lifelong aftercare, it is important for primary care clinicians to understand the basic medical problems and risks.