Solid-organ transplantation in older adults: current status and future research

An increasing number of patients older than 65 years are referred for and have access to organ transplantation, and an increasing number of older adults are donating organs. Although short-term outcomes are similar in older versus younger transplant recipients, older donor or recipient age is associated with inferior long-term outcomes. However, age is often a proxy for other factors that might predict poor outcomes more strongly and better identify patients at risk for adverse events. Approaches to transplantation in older adults vary across programs, but despite recent gains in access and the increased use of marginal organs, older patients remain less likely than other groups to receive a transplant, and those who do are highly selected. Moreover, few studies have addressed geriatric issues in transplant patient selection or management, or the implications on health span and disability when patients age to late life with a transplanted organ. This paper summarizes a recent trans-disciplinary workshop held by ASP, in collaboration with NHLBI, NIA, NIAID, NIDDK and AGS, to address issues related to kidney, liver, lung, or heart transplantation in older adults and to propose a research agenda in these areas.

Variation, precision and validity of 1-year survival estimates for lung, breast, colon and prostate cancer in South East England primary care trusts

BACKGROUND

English cancer policy has encouraged primary care trusts (PCTs) to consider their 1-year cancer survival estimates. This study quantifies variation in these estimates across 39 PCTs in the London and South East Coast strategic health authorities, and explores their precision, possible confounding by age and bias due to death certificate only (DCO) registrations.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

METHODS

One-year relative survival estimates and data on DCO registrations for patients diagnosed with lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers between 2002 and 2006 were extracted from the UK Cancer Information Service. Direct age standardization was performed with weightings derived from the standard cancer patient population for Europe. Pearson correlation coefficients between survival estimates and DCO proportions were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean 1-year PCT survival estimates ranged from 6.9 to 19.4 percentage points, and the precision of individual estimates ranged from ±0.9 to ±6.5 percentage points (at 95% confidence level). Age standardization significantly changed the estimates of nine PCTs for breast cancer, five PCTs for lung cancer and three PCTs for colorectal cancer. None of the prostate cancer estimates were affected significantly. DCO proportions were positively associated with lung cancer survival and negatively associated with colorectal and breast cancer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

PCT 1-year cancer survival estimates may be informative, but caveats relating to data quality and hence the validity of the estimates means that they require careful investigation before naïve use, as random variation, confounding due to age and bias due to DCO registrations may be significant.

When and why do doctors decide to become general practitioners? Implications for recruitment into UK general practice specialty training

All applicants to round 1 of national recruitment into the general practice specialty recruitment process were surveyed as to the reasons for, and the timing of their career choices. Most applicants reported decision making after completing undergraduate training citing variety, continuity of care and work-life balance as their main drivers for a career in general practice. Applicants were statistically more likely to have undertaken a Foundation placement in general practice than their peers on a Foundation programme. Reasons for choice of deanery were largely related to location and social ties, rather than to the educational 'reputation' of its programmes.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation: evaluation to decision making

Questions about appropriate allocation of simultaneous liver and kidney transplants (SLK) are being asked because kidney dysfunction in the context of liver failure enhances access to deceased donor organs. There is specific concern that some patients who undergo combined liver and kidney transplantation may have reversible renal failure. There is also concern that liver transplants are placed prematurely in those with end-stage renal disease. Thus to assure allocation of transplants only to those truly in need, the transplant community met in March 2006 to review post-MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) data on the impact of renal function on liver waitlist and transplant outcomes and the results of SLK.

Long-term outcomes in liver transplant patients with hepatic C infection receiving tacrolimus or cyclosporine

Choice of calcineurin inhibitor may be a contributing factor to deteriorating patient and graft survival following liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV). In our multicenter, open-label LIS2T study, de novo liver transplant patients stratified by HCV status were randomized to cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Follow-up data were obtained in an observational study of 95 patients. Mean follow-up was 34 and 37 months, respectively, for cyclosporine-treated (n = 47) and tacrolimus-treated (n = 48) patients. In patients not receiving antiviral therapy, 22 of 31 given cyclosporine (72%) and 24 of 29 given tacrolimus (83%) had biochemical recurrence of HCV. In 68 patients with at least one biopsy, histological evidence of HCV-related hepatitis was present in 27 of 31 (87%) cyclosporine-treated patients and 37 of 37 (100%) tacrolimus-treated patients (P = .02, chi-square test). Three-year actuarial risk of fibrosis stage 2 was 66% with cyclosporine and 90% with tacrolimus; for fibrosis stage 3 or 4 it was 46% and 80%, respectively. Three graft losses were attributed to HCV recurrence in cyclosporine-treated patients and six in tacrolimus-treated patients. Tacrolimus may be associated with increased risk of histological HCV disease recurrence compared to cyclosporine.

Conversion of stable liver transplant recipients from a twice-daily Prograf-based regimen to a once-daily modified release tacrolimus-based regimen

INTRODUCTION

Modified release (MR) tacrolimus is an extended release formulation administered once daily. The purpose of this pharmacokinetic (PK) study was to evaluate tacrolimus exposure in stable liver transplant recipients converted from Prograf twice a day to MR tacrolimus once daily.

METHODS

This was an open-label, multicenter study with a single sequence, four-period crossover design. Eligible patients were 18 to 65 years of age, >6 months posttransplant with stable renal and hepatic function and receiving stable doses of Prograf twice a day for >2 weeks prior to enrollment. Patients received Prograf twice a day on days 1 to 14 and 29 to 42. Patients were converted to the same milligram-for-milligram daily dose of MR once daily on days 15 to 28 and 43 to 56. Twenty-four-hour PK profiles were obtained on days 14, 28, 42, and 56. Laboratory and safety parameters were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 70 patients, 62 completed all four PK profiles. The AUC0-24 of tacrolimus was comparable for Prograf twice a day (days 14 and 42) and MR tacrolimus once daily (days 28 and 56). The 90% confidence intervals for MR tacrolimus versus Prograf at steady state (days 28 and 56 vs days 14 and 42) was 0.85 to 0.92 for AUC0-24. MR tacrolimus was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to that of Prograf. AUC0-24 was highly correlated to Cmin for Prograf (day 14, r = .93; Day 42, r = .89) and for MR tacrolimus (day 28, r = .93; day 56, r = .92). Renal and liver function remained stable. One patient experienced acute rejection.

CONCLUSION

The steady-state tacrolimus exposure of MR tacrolimus once daily is equivalent to Prograf twice a day after a milligram-for-milligram conversion in stable liver transplant recipients.

Improved clinical outcomes for liver transplant recipients using cyclosporine monitoring based on 2-hr post-dose levels (C2)

BACKGROUND

A prospective, open-label, study was conducted at 29 centers in 9 countries, involving 307 de novo liver transplant patients to compare the clinical usefulness of monitoring 2-hr post-dose cyclosporine (CsA) levels (C2) with conventional trough cyclosporine blood levels (pre-dose) (C0).

METHODS

Neoral oral therapy was initiated at 15 mg/kg/day and dose adjusted according to predetermined C2 or C0 target level ranges. The primary efficacy variable was treatment failure at 3 months, where evaluation was based on a composite endpoint of biopsy-proven rejection, treatment for rejection, graft loss, death, or premature withdrawal/discontinuation from the study.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Graft loss at 12 weeks (retransplantation or death) occurred in 6.8% C2 and in 7.0% C0 patients. Overall incidence of treated acute rejection was lower for C2 (23.6%) than C0 patients (31.6%) (P=0.144, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel [CMH] test). In hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative patients, the incidence of rejection in the C2 group was significantly less than in the C0 group (21.2% vs. 33.0%; P<0.05), whereas in HCV-positive patients, the rejection rate was similar in both groups (26.7% for C2 group vs. 27.3% for C0 group: P=0.81). C2 patients (n=16) who reached minimum target CsA levels by day 3 had a notably low incidence of rejection (12.5%), whereas there was no difference in the incidence of rejection in C0 patients, irrespective of time to reach target level. For biopsy-proven acute rejections (21.6% for C2 vs. 30.4% for C0), the incidence of moderate and severe histological diagnosis was significantly lower in the C2 group than in the C0 group (47% vs. 73%; P=0.01). Safety profiles were similar between the two groups, with few patient withdrawals due to adverse events (9.5% for C2; 7.0% for C0).

CONCLUSIONS

Using C2 monitoring, the overall incidence of acute cellular rejection was lower compared with the C0 group, and the histological severity of acute rejections was shown to be significantly milder for the C2 group, indicative of good long-term prognosis. These data demonstrate that the use of C2 monitoring is superior to C0 and results in a reduction in the incidence and severity of acute cellular rejection without detrimental effect on the drug safety profile.

Penetrating esophageal injuries: multicenter study of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define the period of time after which delays in management incurred by investigations cause increased morbidity and mortality. The outcome study is intended to correlate time with death from esophageal causes, overall complications, esophageal related complications, and surgical intensive care unit length of stay.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study involving 34 trauma centers in the United States, under the auspices of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multi-institutional Trials Committee over a span of 10.5 years. Patients surviving to reach the operating room (OR) were divided into two groups: those that underwent diagnostic studies to identify their injuries (preoperative evaluation group) and those that went immediately to the OR (no preoperative evaluation group). Statistical methods included Fisher's exact test, Student's T test, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study involved 405 patients: 355 male patients (86.5%) and 50 female patients (13.5%). The mean Revised Trauma Score was 6.3, the mean Injury Severity Score was 28, and the mean time interval to the OR was 6.5 hours. There were associated injuries in 356 patients (88%), and an overall complication rate of 53.5%. Overall mortality was 78 of 405 (19%). Three hundred forty-six patients survived to reach the OR: 171 in the preoperative evaluation group and 175 in the no preoperative evaluation group. No statistically significant differences were noted in the two groups in the following parameters: number of patients, age, Injury Severity Score, admission blood pressure, anatomic location of injury (cervical or thoracic), surgical management (primary repair, resection and anastomosis, resection and diversion, flaps), number of associated injuries, and mortality. Average length of time to the OR was 13 hours in the preoperative evaluation group versus 1 hour in the no preoperative evaluation group (p < 0.001). Overall complications occurred in 134 in the preoperative evaluation group versus 87 in the no preoperative evaluation group (p < 0.001), and 74 (41%) esophageal related complications occurred in the preoperative evaluation group versus 32 (19%) in the no preoperative evaluation group (p = 0.003). Mean surgical intensive care unit length of stay was 11 days in the preoperative evaluation group versus 7 days in the no preoperative evaluation group (p = 0.012). Logistic regression analysis identified as independent risk factors for the development of esophageal related complications included time delays in preoperative evaluation (odds ratio, 3.13), American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale grade >2 (odds ratio, 2.62), and resection and diversion (odds ratio, 4.47).

CONCLUSION

Esophageal injuries carry a high morbidity and mortality. Increased esophageal related morbidity occurs with the diagnostic workup and its inherent delay in operative repair of these injuries. For centers practicing selective management of penetrating neck injuries and transmediastinal gunshot wounds, rapid diagnosis and definitive repair should be made a high priority.