A prospective, randomized trial of complete avoidance of steroids in liver transplantation with follow-up of over 7 years

Management of long-term complications from immunosuppression

This review discusses long-term complications from immunosuppressants after liver transplantation and the management of these complications. Common complications of calcineurin inhibitors include nephrotoxicity and metabolic diseases. Nephrotoxicity can be managed by targeting a lower drug level and/or adding an immunosuppressant of a different class. Metabolic disorders can be managed by treating the underlying condition and targeting a lower drug level. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and myelosuppression are common complications of antimetabolites that are initially managed with dose reduction or discontinuation if adverse events persist. Mammalian targets of rapamycin inhibitors are associated with myelosuppression, proteinuria, impaired wound healing, and stomatitis, which may require dose reduction or discontinuation. Induction agents and agents used for steroid-refractory rejection or antibody-mediated rejection are reviewed. Other rare complications of immunosuppressants are discussed as well.

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.

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).

A Comprehensive Review on the Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiovascular Disease after Liver Transplantation

Survival rates after liver transplantation have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. Cardiovascular disease is the most common extra-hepatic cause of mortality in the long-term post liver transplant. This is intimately linked with both the higher pre-existing rates of metabolic syndrome in these patients as well as increased propensity to develop de novo metabolic syndrome post-transplant. This unfavorable metabolic profile that contributes to cardiovascular disease is multifactorial and largely preventable. This review explores metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease and their contributory factors post liver transplantation to highlight areas for potential intervention and thus reduce the significant morbidity and mortality of patients due to metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease.

Current status of glucocorticoid usage in solid organ transplantation

Glucocorticoids (GCs) have been the mainstay of immunosuppressive therapy in solid organ transplantation (SOT) for decades, due to their potent effects on innate immunity and tissue protective effects. However, some SOT centers are reluctant to administer GCs long-term because of the various related side effects. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of GCs in SOT. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from 2011 to April 2021 using search syntaxes covering “transplantation” and “glucocorticoids”. GCs are used in transplant recipients, transplant donors, and organ perfusate solution to improve transplant outcomes. In SOT recipients, GCs are administered as induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. GCs are also the cornerstone to treat acute antibody- and T-cell-mediated rejections. Addition of GCs to organ perfusate solution and pretreatment of transplant donors with GCs are recommended by some guidelines and protocols, to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury peri-transplant. GCs with low bioavailability and high potency for GC receptors, such as budesonide, nanoparticle-mediated targeted delivery of GCs to specific organs, and combination use of dexamethasone with inducers of immune-regulatory cells, are new methods of GC application in SOT patients to reduce side effects or induce immune-tolerance instead of immunosuppression. Various side effects involving different non-targeted organs/tissues, such as bone, cardiovascular, neuromuscular, skin and gastrointestinal tract, have been noted for GCs. There are also potential drug-drug interactions for GCs in SOT patients.

Long Term Outcomes of Liver Transplantation For Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis

BACKGROUND

Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a rare indication for liver transplantation (LT). Data on the long-term outcomes of living-related LT for AIH are limited and inconsistent. The present study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of deceased donor LT (DDLT) and living donor LT (LDLT) for AIH.

METHODS

All patients who received transplants for AIH-related cirrhosis from 2001 to 2018 were included in this study.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients (31 male, 43 female) received LT. The average follow-up was 7.9 ± 6.9 years (median = 7.2 years), average age was 34.3 ± 13.8 years, and average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 23.6 ± 8.5. Thirty-six (49.3%) patients received a graft from a living donor, and 83% of patients were maintained on steroids. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of patients were 91%, 89%, 87%, and 82% and of grafts were 89%, 88%, 86%, and 76%, respectively. In univariate analysis, MELD score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.17; P = .028), donor age (OR per 5 years, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02; P = .021), donor type (OR LDLT vs DDLT, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.67; P = .017), and renal function (OR glomerular filtration rate <60 vs ≥60 mL/min/m², 7.41; 95% CI, 1.88-31.25; P = .004) were significant predictors of graft survival; however, none of the factors remained significant in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

We have shown the highest reported long-term survival rates in LT for AIH, including a large number of patients who underwent LDLT. Standardized management and immunosuppressive therapy, including the maintenance of a low-dose steroid protocol, may have contributed to this outcome.

Foremost Concepts in Mechanisms of De Novo Post-Liver Transplantation Malignancy

In liver transplant patients, solid tumors and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) have emerged as significant long-term mortality causes. Additionally, it is assumed that de novo malignancy (DNM) after liver transplantation (LT) is the second-leading cause of death after cardiovascular complications. Well-established risk factors for PTLD and solid tumors are calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), tacrolimus (TAC), and cyclosporine, the cornerstones of all immunosuppressive (IS) therapies used after LT. The loss of immunocompetence facilitated by the host immune system due to prolonged IS therapy leads to cancer development, including in LT patients. Hindering DNA repair mechanisms, promoting tumor cell invasiveness, and hampering apoptosis are critical events in tumorigenesis and tumor growth in LT patients resulting from IS administration. This paper aims to overview the refined mechanisms of IS-induced tumorigenesis after LT and the loss of immunocompetence facilitated by the host immune system due to prolonged IS therapy. In addition, we also discuss in detail the mechanisms of action in different types of IS regimen used after LT, and their putative effect on DNM.

Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide for Liver Transplant Immune Suppression: Results of a Pilot Phase 2a Trial

Despite adverse effects like hyperglycemia, new-onset diabetes after transplant (NODAT), and infectious complications, corticosteroid use remains an important part of liver transplantation (LT) immune suppression. Budesonide, a synthetic corticosteroid, undergoes extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism with only 10% systemic bioavailability, providing an opportunity for an improved toxicity-therapeutic ratio. Although effective in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis, the effects of budesonide for LT immune suppression are unknown. We conducted a single-center phase 2a trial to study the safety and efficacy of budesonide immunosuppressive therapy. From July 2017 to November 2018, 20 patients undergoing a first LT received budesonide tapering doses (from 9 to 3 mg) for 12 weeks. Patients were compared with matched control patients who received prednisone from the same time period. Additionally, both groups received calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolate mofetil. Outcome measures at week 24 included rates of biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection (ACR), NODAT (hemoglobin A1c >6.4%), and infectious complications. In the budesonide arm, 1 patient developed ACR at week 5 and was removed from the study. Another patient stopped the study drug at week 8 due to persistent nausea. Rates of ACR were similar between the budesonide and control groups (5% versus 5%, P = 1.00). Three patients in the control group developed NODAT versus none in the budesonide group (15% versus 0%; P = 0.23). There were 6 infections in the control group compared with none in the budesonide group (30% versus 0; P = 0.02). These pilot data suggest that budesonide has the potential to be a safe and effective alternative to prednisone for LT immune suppression while reducing steroid-induced infections and NODAT. Randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings.

Incisional Hernia After Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) is a well-known complication of orthotopic liver transplantation. Despite wide recognition of the impact of this problem, the incidence remains imprecisely known.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from their inception to November 2017 for abstracts documenting IH after orthotropic liver transplantation (OLT). The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of IH, secondary endpoints were time to hernia and recurrence. Three reviewers independently graded abstracts for inclusion in this review. Heterogeneity in combining data was assumed prior to pooling. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate percentages and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

After a review of 77 abstracts, 18 studies were graded as relevant. The methodological quality of studies was assessed with a minimum Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of 2B. These represent a cohort of 981 patients with IH after OLT reported in the literature. A meta-analysis of studies meeting inclusion criteria shows mean incidence of 15.1% (CI 12.1%-18.2%). Aggregate recurrence rate reported in the literature is 12.4% (CI 4.3%-20.5%). Overall reported time to IH after OLT was 42.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reported incidences of IH after OLT vary widely across studies, an overall incidence of 15.1% is reported. This is a relatively late complication after transplantation. Recurrence of hernia after initial repair is 12.4% within this patient population.

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.

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.

Pro: Steroids Can Be Withdrawn After Transplant in Recipients With Autoimmune Hepatitis

Corticosteroids have been a mainstay of immunosuppression following liver transplantation. However, evolution in the field of transplant immunology has produced steroid-free options, resulting in most transplant centers weaning steroids after transplant within days to months-an evidence-based management decision. Patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), however, receive corticosteroids prior to transplant. This raises the question of whether these patients should also be weaned from corticosteroids. In this review, we discuss the benefits of avoiding steroid use in this population of patients-an approach that not only avoids the adverse effects of corticosteroids but does so without risking graft failure from recurrent AIH or from acute cellular rejection.

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.

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.

Hypertension: The Neglected Complication of Transplantation

Arterial hypertension and transplantation are closely linked, and its association may promote impaired graft and overall survival. Since the introduction of calcineurin inhibitors, it is observed in 50–80% of transplanted patients. However, many pathophysiological mechanisms are involved in its genesis. In this review, we intend to provide an updated overview of these mechanisms, dealing with the causes common to all kinds of transplantation and emphasizing special cases with distinct features, and to give a perspective on the pharmacological approach, in order to help clinicians in the management of this frequent complication.