The association between MMF and risk of progressive renal dysfunction and death in adult liver transplant recipients with HCV

Immunosuppression Monitoring-What Clinician Needs to Know?

The liver is well known for its immunotolerance, but rejection without immunosuppression is frequently encountered post liver transplantation, especially in humans.1 Indeed, the amount of immunosuppression required post liver transplant is less compared to other organ transplants like kidney, heart, and intestine.2 Reports of successful weaning of immunosuppression have been reported but are not practiced for fear of unwanted alloimmune response leading to rejection. Life-long immunosuppression is needed in most patients for graft survival but is associated with side effects like renal dysfunction, metabolic abnormalities, or risk of de novo malignancies. Also, the appropriate dose of immunosuppression to achieve adequate graft function and prevention of toxicities is very important. One shoe does not fit all. There are significant individual variations in response and side effect profile. Also, the level of immunosuppression varies with the underlying liver disease like autoimmune disease requires higher immunosuppression. Thus, monitoring the adequate immunosuppression with the minimization of drug toxicity is imperative post-transplant. Unfortunately, the current methods for immunosuppression monitoring rely on testing the immunosuppressive drug levels rather than the immune system activity. We have discussed the concept of alloreactivity, available methods of immunosuppression and drug monitoring and investigational methods in this review.

Infections in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation has become an important treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease/cirrhosis, acute liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although surgical techniques and immunosuppressive regimens for liver transplantation have improved significantly over the past 20 years, infectious complications continue to contribute to the morbidity and mortality in this patient population. The use of standardized screening protocols for both donors and recipients, coupled with targeted prophylaxis against specific pathogens, has helped to mitigate the risk of infection in liver transplant recipients. Patients with chronic liver disease and cirrhosis have immunological deficits that place them at increased risk for infection while awaiting liver transplantation. The patient undergoing liver transplantation is prone to develop healthcare-acquired infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms that could potentially affect patient outcomes after transplantation. The complex nature of liver transplant surgery that involves multiple vascular and hepatobiliary anastomoses further increases the risk of infection after liver transplantation. During the early post-transplantation period, healthcare-acquired bacterial and fungal infections are the most common types of infection encountered in liver transplant recipients. The period of maximal immunosuppression that occurs at 1–6 months after transplantation can be complicated by opportunistic infections due to both primary infection and reactivation of latent infection. Severe community-acquired infections can complicate the course of liver transplantation beyond 12 months after transplant surgery. This chapter provides an overview of liver transplantation including indications, donor-recipient selection criteria, surgical procedures, and immunosuppressive therapies. A focus on infections in patients with chronic liver disease/cirrhosis and an overview of the specific infectious complications in liver transplant recipients are presented.

Management of Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation outcomes have significantly improved over the past few decades owing largely to the introduction of effective immunosuppression medications. Further comprehension of the unique immune microenvironment of the liver has led to the development of newer molecular targeted therapeutics. Understanding the mechanism of action and adverse effect profiles of these medications is crucial for appropriate management of posttransplant patients. In this review, the author describes the immunologic response elicited by liver transplantation, chronicles the various immunosuppressant drug classes, discusses the evidence behind their use, and evaluates the management of special subpopulations of posttransplantation patients.

Pharmacology and toxicology of mycophenolate in organ transplant recipients: an update

This review aims to provide an update of the literature on the pharmacology and toxicology of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients. Mycophenolate is now the antimetabolite of choice in immunosuppressant regimens in transplant recipients. The active drug moiety mycophenolic acid (MPA) is available as an ester pro-drug and an enteric-coated sodium salt. MPA is a competitive, selective and reversible inhibitor of inosine-5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH), an important rate-limiting enzyme in purine synthesis. MPA suppresses T and B lymphocyte proliferation; it also decreases expression of glycoproteins and adhesion molecules responsible for recruiting monocytes and lymphocytes to sites of inflammation and graft rejection; and may destroy activated lymphocytes by induction of a necrotic signal. Improved long-term allograft survival has been demonstrated for MPA and may be due to inhibition of monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 or fibroblast proliferation. Recent research also suggested a differential effect of mycophenolate on the regulatory T cell/helper T cell balance which could potentially encourage immune tolerance. Lower exposure to calcineurin inhibitors (renal sparing) appears to be possible with concomitant use of MPA in renal transplant recipients without undue risk of rejection. MPA displays large between- and within-subject pharmacokinetic variability. At least three studies have now reported that MPA exhibits nonlinear pharmacokinetics, with bioavailability decreasing significantly with increasing doses, perhaps due to saturable absorption processes or saturable enterohepatic recirculation. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is still controversial and the ability of routine MPA TDM to improve long-term graft survival and patient outcomes is largely unknown. MPA monitoring may be more important in high-immunological recipients, those on calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing regimens and in whom unexpected rejection or infections have occurred. The majority of pharmacodynamic data on MPA has been obtained in patients receiving MMF therapy in the first year after kidney transplantation. Low MPA area under the concentration time from 0 to 12 h post-dose (AUC0-12) is associated with increased incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection although AUC0-12 optimal cut-off values vary across study populations. IMPDH monitoring to identify individuals at increased risk of rejection shows some promise but is still in the experimental stage. A relationship between MPA exposure and adverse events was identified in some but not all studies. Genetic variants within genes involved in MPA metabolism (UGT1A9, UGT1A8, UGT2B7), cellular transportation (SLCOB1, SLCO1B3, ABCC2) and targets (IMPDH) have been reported to effect MPA pharmacokinetics and/or response in some studies; however, larger studies across different ethnic groups that take into account genetic linkage and drug interactions that can alter a patient's phenotype are needed before any clinical recommendations based on patient genotype can be formulated. There is little data on the pharmacology and toxicology of MPA in older and paediatric transplant recipients.

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

The benefits of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-sparing regimens on renal function following liver transplantation (LT) have been demonstrated in clinical studies. This observational study assessed the real-life effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) introduction in LT patients. Four hundred and ninety-seven patients in whom MMF was introduced according to local standards or clinical considerations were entered. Patients were grouped by time between transplantation and start of MMF (start of study): Group A (n = 263): ≤6 d; Group B (n = 64): >6 d to ≤1 month; Group C (n = 74): >1 month to ≤1 yr; and Group D (n = 96): >1 yr. CNI sparing occurred in all groups, particularly in Groups C and D. Mean MMF doses at 12 months were 1202.7, 1363.5, 1504.7, and 1578.1 mg/d, respectively, in Groups A-D. At introduction of MMF, median glomerular filtration rate was 73.3, 81.7, 62.7, and 53.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in Groups A-D. At 12 months, this decreased to 66 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in Groups A and B, remained stable in Group C, and increased in Group D (64.8 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ). Serious adverse drug reactions were lowest in Group D. In conclusion, MMF with a subsequent decrease in CNI was well tolerated and improved renal function even years after transplantation. A more forceful MMF dosing strategy with greater CNI sparing may further improve renal function.

Liver transplant outcome: a comparison between high and low MELD score recipients

OBJECTIVE

To compare low and high MELD scores and investigate whether existing renal dysfunction has an effect on transplant outcome.

METHODS

Data was prospectively collected among 237 liver transplants (216 patients) between March 2003 and March 2009. Patients with cirrhotic disease submitted to transplantation were divided into three groups: MELD > or = 30, MELD < 30, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Renal failure was defined as a +/- 25% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate as observed 1 week after the transplant. Median MELD scores were 35, 21, and 13 for groups MELD > or = 30, MELD < 30, and hepatocellular carcinoma, respectively.

RESULTS

Recipients with MELD > or = 30 had more days in Intensive Care Unit, longer hospital stay, and received more blood product transfusions. Moreover, their renal function improved after liver transplant. All other groups presented with impairment of renal function. Mortality was similar in all groups, but renal function was the most important variable associated with morbidity and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

High MELD score recipients had an improvement in the glomerular filtration rate after 1 week of liver transplantation.

Immunosuppression and HCV recurrence after liver transplantation

HCV related liver disease is the most common indication for liver transplantation. Recurrence of HCV infection is universal and has a substantial impact on patient and graft survival. Immunosuppression is a major factor responsible for the accelerated recurrence and compressed natural history of recurrent HCV infection. Accumulating experience has provided data to support certain strategies for immunosuppressive regimens. From the available evidence, more severe recurrence results from repeated bolus corticosteroid therapy and anti-lymphocyte antibodies used to treat rejection. Low dose and slow tapering of steroids are better than high dose maintenance and/or rapid tapering. Recent meta-analyses favour steroid-free regimens but these are complicated to interpret as the absence of steroids may simply represent less immunopotency. There is no difference in HCV recurrence between tacrolimus and cyclosporine regimens, but tacrolimus increases graft and patient survival in HCV transplanted patients. There may be a beneficial effect of maintenance azathioprine given for 6 months or longer. There is no conclusive evidence for benefit of mycophenolate and interleukin-2 receptor blockers. Few data are available for mTOR inhibitors. Better evidence is needed to establish the optimal immunosuppressive regimen for HCV recipients and more randomized trials should be performed.