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

Key challenges of post-liver transplant weight management

Liver transplantation serves as a life-saving intervention for patients with end-stage liver disease, yet long-term survival remains a challenge. Post-liver transplant obesity seems to have a significant contribution to this challenge and it emerges as a significant risk factor for graft steatosis, metabolic syndrome and de-novo malignancy development. This review synthesizes current literature on prevalence, risk factors and management strategies for post-liver transplant obesity, emphasizing its impact on graft and patient survival. Literature review consultation was conducted in Medline/PubMed, SciELO and EMBASE, with the combination of the following keywords: Weight management, liver transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy, lifestyle interventions, bariatric surgery. Immunosuppressive therapy has a significant influence on long-term survival of liver transplant patients, yet it seems to have lesser effect on post-transplant obesity development than previously thought. However, it significantly contributes to the development of other components of metabolic syndrome. Key predisposing factors for post-transplant obesity development encompass elevated recipient and donor body mass index, a history of alcoholic liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, male gender, the absence of cellular rejection and the marital status of the recipient. Tailored immunosuppressive regimens, pharmacotherapy, lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery represent key components in mitigating post-transplant obesity and improving long-term survival and quality of life in this group of patients. Timely identification and intervention thus hold paramount importance. Further research is warranted to refine optimal management strategies and enhance outcomes in this patient population.

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.

Impact of steroid withdrawal on subclinical graft injury after liver transplantation: A propensity score-matched cohort analysis

Subclinical graft injuries in orthotopic liver transplantation may threaten long-term graft survival and could be the result of chronic under-immunosuppression. It is not known whether steroid withdrawal increases the risk of subclinical immune responses against the graft. This retrospective single-center study aimed to assess the risk of subclinical graft damage after steroid withdrawal within the first nine months after orthotopic liver transplantation in the first three years after transplantation in a prospective cohort of surveillance biopsies using a propensity score matching analysis. Of 355 patients, 109 patients underwent surveillance biopsies between eleven and 36 months after liver transplantation. Thirty-seven patients discontinue steroids within the first nine months and 72 later than nine months after transplantation. The matching led to 28 patients per group. Patients with autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and hepatocarcinoma were excluded by the propensity score matching unintentionally. Patients who discontinued steroids had a trend toward lower levels of immunosuppression at the time of surveillance biopsy. Steroid withdrawal in the first nine months was not associated with an increased risk of subclinical T cell-mediated rejection, graft inflammation, or liver graft fibrosis in the matched cohort with patients with a low frequency of autoimmune liver diseases. There were also no differences in the development of metabolic diseases. In conclusion, steroid withdrawal within the first nine months after transplantation, as assessed by surveillance biopsies, does not increase the risk of subclinical graft injuries or fibrosis at least in liver transplant recipient without or a low prevalence of autoimmune liver diseases.

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.

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).

Obesity Management of Liver Transplant Waitlist Candidates and Recipients

Obesity is increasing in prevalence in liver transplant candidates and recipients. The rise in liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis reflects this increase. Management of obesity in liver transplant candidates can be challenging due to the presence of decompensated cirrhosis and sarcopenia. Obesity may increase peritransplant morbidity but does not have an impact on long-term post-transplant survival. Bariatric surgery may be a feasible option in select patients before, during, or after liver transplantation. Use of weight loss drugs and/or endoscopic therapies for obesity management ultimately may play a role in liver transplant patients, but more research is needed to determine safety.

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.

Obesity in the Liver Transplant Setting

The obesity epidemic has resulted in an increased prevalence of obesity in liver transplant (LT) candidates and in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) becoming the fastest growing indication for LT. LT teams will be dealing with obesity in the coming years, and it is necessary for them to recognize some key aspects surrounding the LT in obese patients. Obesity by itself should not be considered a contraindication for LT, but it should make LT teams pay special attention to cardiovascular risk assessment, in order to properly select candidates for LT. Obese patients may be at increased risk of perioperative respiratory and infectious complications, and it is necessary to establish preventive strategies. Data on patient and graft survival after LT are controversial and scarce, especially for long-term outcomes, but morbid obesity may adversely affect these outcomes, particularly in NAFLD. The backbone of obesity treatment should be diet and exercise, whilst being careful not to precipitate or worsen frailty and sarcopenia. Bariatric surgery is an alternative for treatment of obesity, and the ideal timing regarding LT is still unknown. Sleeve gastrectomy is probably the procedure that has the best evidence in LT because it offers a good balance between safety and efficacy.

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.

Steroid-free immunosuppression with low-dose tacrolimus is safe and significantly reduces the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus following liver transplantation

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids (CS) are traditionally used as part of the basal immunosuppression (IS) following liver transplantation (LT) but are known to be associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the incidence of transient as well as persistent NODM, rejection rate and patient- and graft survival between patients receiving steroid-based and steroid-free maintenance IS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 238 patients liver transplanted (2008-2011) with deceased donor livers were divided into two groups, one group that received steroid-based IS (tacrolimus (TAC), corticosteroids (CS), ± mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); n = 155) (2008-2011) and another group of non-autoimmune recipients that received steroid-free IS (TAC, MMF; n = 83) according to our new maintenance IS-protocol starting January 2010. The primary and secondary end-points were patient- and graft survival, rejection rates and the incidence of NODM. The median follow-up times were 1248 days and 681 days, respectively.

RESULTS

The one-year patient- and graft survival in the steroid-based and steroid-free group was 92.7% and 93.3% (ns) and 87.6% and 84.9% (ns), respectively. The incidence of biopsy proven acute rejection (BPAR) was 27.7% in both groups (ns) during follow-up. The overall incidence of persistent NODM in the two groups were 16.8% and 2.9%, respectively (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that steroid-free low-dose tacrolimus-based IS following LT is safe and decreases the incidence of NODM significantly.

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.

Liver Transplantation in the Obese Cirrhotic Patient

Despite the rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity in the transplant population, the optimal management of obese liver transplant candidates remains undefined. Setting strict body mass index cutoffs for transplant candidacy remains controversial, with limited data to guide this practice. Body mass index is an imperfect measure of surgical risk in this population, partly due to volume overload and variable visceral adiposity. Weight loss before transplantation may be beneficial, but it remains important to avoid protein calorie malnutrition and sarcopenia. Intensive lifestyle modifications appear to be successful in achieving weight loss, though the durability of these interventions is not known. Pretransplant and intraoperative bariatric surgeries have been performed, but large randomized controlled trials are lacking. Traditional cardiovascular comorbidities are more prevalent in obese individuals and remain the basis for pretransplant cardiovascular evaluation and risk stratification. The recent US liver transplant experience demonstrates comparable patient and graft survival between obese and nonobese liver transplant recipients, but obesity presents important medical and surgical challenges during and after transplant. Specifically, obesity is associated with an increased incidence of wound infections, wound dehiscence, biliary complications and overall infection, and confers a higher risk of posttransplant obesity and metabolic syndrome-related complications. In this review, we examine current practices in the obese liver transplant population, offer recommendations based on the currently available data, and highlight areas where additional research is needed.

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.

Common issues in the management of patients in the waiting list and after liver transplantation

The present document contains the recommendations of an expert panel of transplant hepatologists, appointed by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), on how to manage the most common aspects of liver transplantation: the topics covered include: new treatments for HCV in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation; antiviral treatments in patients with HCV recurrence after liver transplantation; prophylaxis for HBV recurrence after liver transplantation; indications for liver transplantation in alcoholic liver disease; and Immunosuppressive therapy. The statements on each topic were approved by participants at the AISF Transplant Hepatologist Expert Meeting (organized by the Permanent Committee on Liver Transplantation in Mondello on 4-5 October 2015), and are graded according to the Oxford classification of levels of evidence.

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.

Impact of different immunosuppressive regimens on the health-related quality of life following orthotopic liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The influence of immunosuppression on the recipients' quality of life (QoL) is of major importance after OLT and has not yet been evaluated.

METHODS

The impact of different immunosuppression regimens after OLT was evaluated in 275 patients using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) survey. The following immunosuppressive strategies were compared: (a) CNI, (b) mTOR inhibitors, and (c) mTOR combined with CNI. All regimens were prescribed alone (mono) or in combination (+) with prednisolone and/or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

RESULTS

Highest scores were evident in patients in the mTOR+ group. There were significantly higher values for general health perceptions (GH, p = 0.049), vitality (VIT, p = 0.020), and physical component summary (PCS, p = 0.041) when compared to CNImono and for GH (p = 0.042) and VIT (p = 0.043), when compared to mTORmono. Early conversion to mTOR inhibitors (<two months after OLT) was associated with higher values for 7 of 10 scales, when compared to a late conversion (>two months after OLT), with a statistically significant improvement for the dimension role-emotional (RE, p = 0.027).

DISCUSSION

mTOR inhibitor-based regimens appear to have beneficial effects on QoL after OLT, especially after an early conversion.

Prednisolone does not affect direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C, but inhibits interferon-alpha production by plasmacytoid dendritic cells

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection compromises long-term outcomes of liver transplantation. Although glucocorticosteroid-based immunosuppression is commonly used, discussion is ongoing on the effect of prednisolone (Pred) on HCV recurrence and response to antiviral therapy post transplantation. Recently, new drugs (direct-acting antivirals) have been approved for the treatment of HCV, however, it remains unknown whether their antiviral activity is affected by Pred. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Pred on the antiviral activity of asunaprevir (Asu), daclatasvir (Dac), ribavirin (RBV), and interferon-alpha (IFN-α), and on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (PDCs), the main IFN-α-producing immune cells.

METHODS

The effects of Pred and antiviral compounds were tested in both a subgenomic and infectious HCV replication model. Furthermore, effects were tested on human PDCs stimulated with a Toll-like receptor-7 ligand.

RESULT

Pred did not directly affect HCV replication and did not inhibit the antiviral action of Asu, Dac, RBV, or IFN-α. Stimulated PDCs potently suppressed HCV replication. This suppression was reversed by treating PDCs with Pred. Pred significantly decreased IFN-α production by PDCs without affecting cell viability. When Asu and Dac were combined with PDCs, a significant cooperative antiviral effect was observed.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that Pred acts on the antiviral function of PDCs. Pred does not affect the antiviral action of Asu, Dac, RBV, or IFN-α. This implies that there is no contraindication to combine antiviral therapies with Pred in the post-transplantation management of HCV recurrence.

New-onset diabetes mellitus after pediatric liver transplantation

In the first five yr after liver transplant, approximately one in 10 pediatric recipients will develop NODAT. Factors associated with higher risk for NODAT have been difficult to identify due to lack of uniformity in reporting and data collection. Limited studies have reported higher risk in those who are at an older age at transplant, those with high-risk ethnic backgrounds, and in those with particular underlying conditions, such as CF and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Immunosuppressive medications, including tacrolimus, cyclosporine A, GC, and sirolimus, have been implicated as contributing to NODAT, to varying degrees. Identifying those at highest risk, appropriately screening, and diagnosing NODAT is critical to initiating timely treatment and avoiding potential complications. In the pediatric population, treatment is limited primarily to insulin, with some consideration for metformin. Children with NODAT should be monitored carefully for complications of DM, including microalbuminuria, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and retinopathy.

Initial experience of dual maintenance immunosuppression with steroid withdrawal in vascular composite tissue allotransplantation

Current immunosuppression in VCA is largely based on the experience in solid organ transplantation. It remains unclear if steroids can be reduced safely in VCA recipients. We report on five VCA recipients who were weaned off maintenance steroids after a median of 2 months (mean: 4.8 months, range 2-12 months). Patients were kept subsequently on a low dose, dual maintenance consisting of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenloic acid with a mean follow-up of 43.6 months (median = 40 months, range 34-64 months). Early and late acute rejections responded well to temporarily augmented maintenance, topical immunosuppression, and/or steroid bolus treatment. One late steroid-resistant acute rejection required treatment with thymoglobulin. All patients have been gradually weaned off steroids subsequent to the treatment of acute rejections. Low levels of tacrolimus (<5 ng/mL) appeared as a risk for acute rejections. Although further experience and a cautious approach are warranted, dual-steroid free maintenance immunosuppression appears feasible in a series of five VCA recipients.

Comprehensive comparison of three different immunosuppressive regimens for liver transplant patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: steroid-free immunosuppression, induction immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression

The different choices of immunosuppression (IS) regimens influenced the outcomes of liver transplantation. Steroid was applied as a standard IS to prevent and treat rejections. However, steroid-related complications were increasingly prominent. This study compared the efficacy and safety of standard IS regimens with the efficacy and safety of steroid-free IS regimen and induction IS regimen in Chinese liver transplantation recipients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 329 patients who underwent liver transplantation from January 2008 to December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Three different groups of patients received standard triple-drug IS regimen of steroid, tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (triple-drug regimen group; n=57), induction-contained IS regimen of basiliximab, steroid, TAC and MMF (BS group; n=241), and induction-contained and steroid-free regimen of basiliximab, TAC and MMF (SF group; n=31), respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates. The acute rejection rate and rejection time were equivalent in different groups. But compared with BS group, higher incidences of biliary complications (11.52% vs. 30.77%, p=0.013) and graft dysfunction (0.48% vs. 13.64%, p=0.003) were observed in SF group. Furthermore, compared with the two groups, incidence of pleural effusion was also higher in SF group (15.79%, 11.96% vs. 45.45%, respectively, both p<0.01). And a trend towards less proportion of De novo diabetes was revealed in SF group. Although it was found that patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates were equivalent among three IS regimens, higher incidences of complications were demonstrated in steroid-free regimen in patients for HCC. These findings suggested that steroid-free IS regimen has no clear advantages in comparison with standard IS regimens for liver transplant recipients with HCC and the postoperative complications should be treated with concentrated attention.

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.

Liver transplantation: immunosuppression and oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Long-term survival of liver transplant recipients is threatened by increased rates of de-novo malignancy and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), both events tightly related to immunosuppression.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is accumulating evidence linking increased exposure to immunosuppressants and carcinogenesis, particularly concerning calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), azathioprine and antilymphocyte agents. A recent study including 219 HCC transplanted patients showed that HCC recurrence rates were halved if a minimization of CNIs was applied within the first month after liver transplant. With mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors as approved immunosuppressants for liver transplant patients, pooled data from several retrospective studies have suggested their possible benefit for reducing HCC recurrence.

SUMMARY

Randomized controlled trials with sufficiently long follow-up are needed to evaluate the influence of different immunosuppression protocols in preventing malignancy after LT. Currently, early minimization of CNIs with or without mTOR inhibitors or mycophenolate seems a rational strategy for patients with risk factors for de-novo malignancy or recurrence of HCC after liver transplant. A deeper understanding of the immunological pathways of rejection and cancer would allow for designing more specific and safer drugs, and thus to prevent cancer after liver transplant.

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.

Challenges of recurrent hepatitis C in the liver transplant patient

Cirrhosis secondary to hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a very common indication for liver transplant. Unfortunately recurrence of HCV is almost universal in patients who are viremic at the time of transplant. The progression of fibrosis has been shown to be more rapid in the post-transplant patients than in the transplant naïve, hence treatment of recurrent HCV needs to be considered for all patients with documented recurrent HCV. Management of recurrent HCV is a challenging situation both for patients and physicians due to multiple reasons as discussed in this review. The standard HCV treatment with pegylated interferon and Ribavarin can be considered in these patients but it leads to a lower rate of sustained virologic clearance than in the non-transplanted population. Some of the main challenges associated with treating recurrent HCV in post-transplant patients include the presence of cytopenias; need to monitor drug-drug interactions and the increased incidence of renal compromise. In spite of these obstacles all patients with recurrent HCV should be considered for treatment since it is associated with improvement in survival and a delay in fibrosis progression. With the arrival of direct acting antiviral drugs there is renewed hope for better outcomes in the treatment of post-transplant HCV recurrence. This review evaluates current literature on this topic and identifies challenges associated with the management of post-transplant HCV recurrence.