Outcomes in hepatitis C virus-infected recipients of living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

Can living donor liver transplantation provide similar outcomes to deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A potential solution to the deceased organ shortage is to include live organ donations and to identify patients with lower rates of HCC recurrence to fairly allocate liver grafts. Our aims were to detect the long-term outcomes of LDLT versus DDLT for HCC and predictors of recurrence after transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies from inception to July 2021 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done.

RESULTS

35 studies with a total of 7822 patients were included. The 1-, 3-, 4 year-OS showed trivial improvement for LDLT recipients. However, the two modalities had similar 5-, 6- and 10-year OS. A significant improvement in the ITT-OS was observed for LDLT recipients. Regarding the DFS and recurrence after transplantation, no significant difference was observed between LDLT and DDLT. In addition to that, the pooled hazard ratio of the included studies showed that Milan criteria, level of AFP, presence of vascular invasion, tumor differentiation were significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The cancer biology (not the graft type) is the most important determinant of recurrence and survival after LT. However, LDLT provided much better survival benefits to HCC patients especially in regions that suffer from low deceased organ availability.

Current status of adult liver transplantation: utilization of living donor versus deceased donor graft

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will summarize prior and recent studies comparing outcomes between living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) in adults and provide a rationale and framework for expanding living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Western countries to address the growing critical organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating superior survival outcomes in LDLT in addition to a multitude of other advantages including shorter cold ischemia times, opportunity for pretransplant medical optimization, and expansion of transplant eligibility. Additionally, these outcomes continue to improve with center volume and experience.

SUMMARY

LDLT in adults emerged in response to an effective donor organ shortage created by the critical discrepancy between donor graft supply and demand. Overcoming this organ shortage and an increasing waitlist mortality requires a liver transplant framework that fully integrates LDLT into liver disease management although continuing to fully maximize deceased donor graft utilization at experience, capable centers. Optimizing both living and deceased donor graft utilization will drastically increase patients' access to LT.

Living or deceased organ donors in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC patients were not well defined and it was necessary to reassess.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and WanFang database for eligible studies. Perioperative and survival outcomes of HCC patients underwent LDLT were pooled and compared to those underwent DDLT.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies with 5376 HCC patients were included. For HCC patients underwent LDLT and DDLT, there were comparable rates of overall survival (OS) (1-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = 0.03; 3-year, RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.96-1.11, P = 0.39; 5-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.95-1.13, P = 0.43), disease free survival (DFS) (1-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.95-1.05, P = 0.99; 3-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.94-1.08, P = 0.89; 5-year, RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.93-1.09, P = 0.85), recurrence (1-year, RR = 1.41, 95%CI = 0.72-2.77, P = 0.32; 3-year, RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.57-1.39, P = 0.60; and 5-year, RR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.56-1.31, P = 0.47), perioperative mortality within 3 months (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.50-1.59, p = 0.70) and postoperative complication (RR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.70-1.39, P = 0.94). LDLT was associated with better 5-year intention-to-treat patient survival (ITT-OS) than DDLT (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.01-1.22, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that LDLT was not inferior to DDLT in consideration of comparable perioperative and survival outcomes. However, in terms of 5-year ITT-OS, LDLT was a possibly better choice for HCC patients.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Increased survival in hepatitis c patients who underwent living donor liver transplant: a case-control study with propensity score matching

Purpose

There is no consensus regarding the difference in outcomes of HCV in patients who receive living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aims of this study were to compare characteristics between LDLT and DDLT groups and to identify risk factors affecting patient survival.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the multicenter records of 192 HCV RNA-positive patients who underwent liver transplantation.

Results

Thirty-five patients underwent DDLT, and 146 underwent LDLT. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates were 66.7%, 63.0%, and 63.0% in the DDLT group and 86.1%, 82.3%, and 79.5% in the LDLT group (P = 0.024), respectively. After propensity matching, the patient survival curve of the LDLT group was higher than that of the DDLT group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in patient survival between the 2 groups (P = 0.061). Recipient age ≥ 60 years, LDLT, and use of tacrolimus were positively associated with patient survival in multivariate analyses.

Conclusion

LDLT appears to be suitable for HCV-infected patients if appropriate living donor is available.

The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Compared to cadaveric liver transplantation, live donor LT (LDLT) is challenged by ethical, medical and surgical considerations, many of which are still unresolved. The aim of this guideline is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT.

New-onset diabetes mellitus after living-donor liver transplantation: association with graft synthetic function

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

It is now known that post-transplant graft function after deceased-donor liver transplantation and living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) differ; however, there is no report assessing the relationship between graft function and the development of new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation (NODAT). We conducted this study to identify the predictive risk factors for NODAT, including graft function after LDLT.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were 175 adult recipients who underwent LDLT at Kyoto University Hospital between 2006 and 2010, and survived for more than 3 months (median observation period, 1046 days).

RESULTS

The 1-, 2-, and 3-year incidences of NODAT after LDLT were 26.1, 32.0, and 33.4%, respectively. Pre-transplant diabetes was associated with poor survival (p = 0.0048), whereas NODAT was not associated with patient survival. In the multivariate analysis, recipient age ≥40, a tacrolimus trough level ≥8 ng/mL 3 months after LDLT, and cholinesterase (ChE) <185 IU/L 3 months after LDLT were the independent risk factors for NODAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor graft synthetic function 3 months after LDLT as well as older age of the recipient and a higher tacrolimus concentration were strongly associated with NODAT development after LDLT.

Living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) accounts for a small volume of the transplants in the USA. Due to the current liver allocation system based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), LDLT has a unique role in providing life-saving transplantation for patients with low MELD scores and significant complications from portal hypertension, as well as select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Donor safety is paramount and has been a topic of much discussion in the transplant community as well as the general media. The donor risk appears to be low overall, with a favorable long-term quality of life. The latest trend has been a gradual shift from right-lobe grafts to left-lobe grafts to reduce donor risk, provided that the left lobe can provide adequate liver volume for the recipient.

Selection Criteria and Current Issues in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) is an ideal treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because it not only resects HCCs but it also replaces the underlying damaged liver with normal tissue. However, the selection criteria are still a matter of debate. After the introduction of the Milan criteria, some expanded criteria focusing on tumor size and number have been proposed. In addition, new expanded criteria considering tumor biology have been proposed using tumor markers and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. This review summarizes the selection criteria in LT for HCC and introduces current issues focusing on the treatment for hepatitis C virus infection and the significance of sarcopenia in this field.

[Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Update consensus document from the AEEH, SEOM, SERAM, SERVEI and SETH]

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common primary malignancy of the liver and one of the most frequent causes of death in patients with liver cirrhosis. Simultaneously with the recognition of the clinical relevance of this neoplasm, in recent years there have been important developments in the diagnosis, staging and treatment of HCC. Consequently, the Asociación Española para el Estudio del Hígado has driven the need to update clinical practice guidelines, continuing to invite all the societies involved in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease to participate in the drafting and approval of the document (Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático, Sociedad Española de Radiología Médica, Sociedad Española de Radiología Vascular e Intervencionista y Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica). The clinical practice guidelines published in 2009 accepted as Clinical Practice Guidelines of the National Health System has been taken as reference document, incorporating the most important advances that have been made in recent years. The scientific evidence for the treatment of HCC has been evaluated according to the recommendations of the National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov) and the strength of recommendation is based on the GRADE system.

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.

Natural interferon-beta treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C in Japan

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can cause liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several studies have demonstrated that the eradication of HCV reduces the occurrence of HCC. In Japan, as many people live to an advanced age, HCV-infected patients are also getting older, and the age at HCC diagnosis has also increased. Although older HCV-infected patients have a risk of developing HCC, the treatment response to peginterferon-alpha plus ribavirin therapy is relatively poor in these patients because of drop-out or discontinuation of this treatment due to adverse events. It is established that the mechanism of action between interferon-alpha and interferon-beta is slightly different. Short-term natural interferon-beta monotherapy is effective for patients with acute hepatitis C and patients infected with HCV genotype 2 and low viral loads. Natural interferon-beta plus ribavirin for 48 wk or for 24 wk are also effective for some patients with HCV genotype 1 or HCV genotype 2. Natural interferon-beta plus ribavirin has been used for certain “difficult-to-treat” HCV-infected patients. In the era of direct-acting anti-virals, natural interferon-beta plus ribavirin may be one of the therapeutic options for special groups of HCV-infected patients. In the near future, signal transduction pathways of interferon-beta will inform further directions.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are few long-term studies of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in living liver donors. This study aimed to characterize donor HRQOL in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) up to 11 years post-donation.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, HRQOL was assessed at evaluation, at 3 months, and yearly post-donation in prevalent liver donors using the short-form survey (SF-36), which provides a physical (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS).

RESULTS

Of the 458 donors enrolled in A2ALL, 374 (82%) had SF-36 data. Mean age at evaluation was 38 (range 18-63), 47% were male, 93% white, and 43% had a bachelor's degree or higher. MCS and PCS means were above the US population at all time points. However, at every time point there were some donors who reported poor scores (>1/2 standard deviation below the age and sex adjusted mean) (PCS: 5.3-26.8%,

MCS

10.0-25.0%). Predictors of poor PCS and MCS scores included recipient's death within the two years prior to the survey and education less than a bachelor's degree; poor PCS scores were also predicted by time since donation, Hispanic ethnicity, and at the 3-month post-donation time point.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, most living donors maintain above average HRQOL up to 11 years prospectively, supporting the notion that living donation does not negatively affect HRQOL. However, targeted support for donors at risk for poor HRQOL may improve overall HRQOL outcomes for living liver donors.

Association of rs12979860 and rs8099917 polymorphisms near IL28B with SVR in hepatic allograft recipients with HCV recurrence undergoing PEG-IFN/RBV therapy: a meta-analysis

The association of rs12979860 and rs8099917 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) near IL28B with sustained virological response (SVR) in hepatic allograft recipients undergoing treatment with PEGylated interferon (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) for recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains inconclusive. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to estimate this association. A search of the literature published prior to November 1, 2013, was conducted using various databases. Eleven eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that rs12979860 genotype CC in the recipient, donor, and recipient/donor pair was significantly related to high SVR in the recipients (recipient: odds ratio [OR]=3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.18-4.30; donor: OR=2.65, 95% CI=1.83-3.85; recipient/donor pair: OR=6.05, 95% CI=3.16-11.58). A similar association was observed with rs8099917 genotype TT (recipient: OR=3.84, 95% CI=2.37-6.22; donor: OR=2.44, 95% CI=1.12-5.28; recipient/donor pair: OR=5.43, 95% CI=2.51-11.75). These results suggest that rs12979860 genotype CC and rs8099917 genotype TT contribute to a high SVR in the recipient after antiviral treatment.

Infections after orthotopic liver transplantation

Opportunistic infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality after orthotopic liver transplantation. Systemic immunosuppression renders the liver recipient susceptible to de novo infection with bacteria, viruses and fungi post-transplantation as well to reactivation of pre-existing, latent disease. Pathogens are also transmissible via the donor organ. The time from transplantation and degree of immunosuppression may guide the differential diagnosis of potential infectious agents. However, typical systemic signs and symptoms of infection are often absent or blunted after transplant and a high index of suspicion is needed. Invasive procedures are often required to procure tissue for culture and guide antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the incidence of opportunistic infections and is routinely employed in the care of patients after liver transplant. In this review, we survey common bacterial, fungal, and viral infections after orthotopic liver transplantation and highlight recent developments in their diagnosis and management.

Impact of anti-thymocyte globulin during immunosuppression induction in patients with hepatitis C after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Induction immunosuppression with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) provides potential benefits after liver transplantation (LT). However, its use in patients with LT and hepatitis C (HCV) is controversial.

AIM

To evaluate the 1- and 2-year patient survival and HCV recurrence rate in patients receiving ATG during the induction phase of immunosuppression (IPI) after LT.

METHODS

A total of 49 patients undergoing their first LT for HCV were randomized to receive ATG during IPI. Patient survival and HCV recurrence were determined at 1 and 2 years. The frequency of acute cellular rejection (ACR), infections, and neoplasms was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were randomized to receive ATG (Arm-1) and 23 to standard induction therapy (Arm-2). Those given ATG had lower HCV recurrence (26.9 vs 73.9 %, p = 0.001). The 1- and 2-year patient survival rates were similar for both arms (p = 0.33). Infections occurred in 46.1 % subjects in Arm-1 and 34.7 % in Arm-2 (p = 0.562). There was a greater proportion of fungal infections in Arm-1 (19.2 vs 0 %, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

ATG during the IPI was associated with lower frequency of recurrence of HCV in patients undergoing LT. This, however, did not affect the 1- and 2-year survival and the frequency of ACR, infections, or neoplasms.

Natural history of hepatitis C

There has long been evidence that hepatitis C can lead to persistent infection in a high proportion of infected individuals, and can progress to chronic liver disease, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The transition from acute to chronic hepatitis C is usually sub-clinical. Accurate studies of the time course for clearance of acute hepatitis C are difficult to carry out because of the silent onset of the acute disease. The likelihood of spontaneous HCV resolution is associated with several genetic factors, including IL28B inheritance and the DQB1*0301 allele of the major histocompatibility complex class II. Most data suggest that resolution in the acute phase without progression to chronic disease is not accompanied by significant disease, but minor histological lesions have been observed in anti-HCV positive, HCV RNA negative individuals. The risk of reinfection remains a possibility after clearance of acute hepatitis C. High rates of sexually-transmitted infection are being reported in HIV positive men who have sex with men (MSM). Chronic infection with HCV is the leading cause of end-stage liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver related death in the Western world. The natural history of the chronic disease remains incompletely defined. It is generally a slowly progressive disease characterized by persistent hepatic inflammation, leading to the development of cirrhosis in approximately 10-20% of patients over 20-30 years of HCV infection. However, the published data indicate varying progression rates to cirrhosis. Overall, once cirrhosis has developed there is a 1-5% annual risk of HCC and a 3-6% annual risk of hepatic decompensation. Following an episode of decompensation the risk of death in the following year is between 15% and 20%. The high number of chronically infected individuals, the burden of disease, and the absence of a vaccine indicates that treatment will form part of the disease control but the impact, effectiveness and outcomes of treatment in various groups remain uncertain. Several studies and meta-analysis have concluded that eradication of HCV with antiviral therapy reduces the risk of HCC in patients with chronic hepatitis C, independent of fibrosis stage, but the risk is not eliminated.

Hepatitis C Recurrence after Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: Mechanisms and Management

Chronic Hepatitis C (HCV) infection is the leading indication for orthotopic liver transplantation and recurrence is nearly universal. Chronic HCV infection is frequently established through evasion of the innate immune system. Priming of adaptive immune responses modulate the severity and rate of fibrosis progression. Those with demonstrable viremia entering the transplant period uniformly suffer recurrence post-transplant. Progression to cirrhosis is accelerated post-transplant secondary to systemic immunosuppression. In addition, a number of factors, including donor, host, and viral characteristics, influence severity and rate of fibrosis progression. Interferon-based therapy, the previous standard of care, in those with advanced cirrhosis or post-transplant has been limited by a number of issues. These include a relative lack of efficacy and poor tolerability with higher incidence of infection and anemia. Recently, approval of direct acting antivirals have ushered in a new era in HCV therapeutics and have applicability in these special populations. Their use immediately prior to or post-transplant is expected to improve both morbidity and mortality.

Post-liver transplant hepatitis C virus recurrence: an unresolved thorny problem

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis represents the leading cause of liver transplantation in developed, Western and Eastern countries. Unfortunately, liver transplantation does not cure recipient HCV infection: reinfection universally occurs and disease progression is faster after liver transplant. In this review we focus on what happens throughout the peri-transplant phase and in the first 6-12 mo after transplantation: during this crucial period a completely new balance between HCV, liver graft, the recipient's immune response and anti-rejection therapy is achieved that will deeply affect subsequent outcomes. Nearly all patients show an early graft reinfection, with HCV viremia reaching and exceeding pre-transplant levels; in this setting, histological assessment is essential to differentiate recurrent hepatitis C from acute or chronic rejection; however, differentiating the two patterns remains difficult. The host immune response (mainly cellular mediated) appears to be crucial both in the control of HCV infection and in the genesis of rejection, and it is also strongly influenced by immunosuppressive treatment. At present no clear immunosuppressive strategy could be strongly recommended in HCV-positive recipients to prevent HCV recurrence, even immunotherapy appears to be ineffective. Nonetheless it seems reasonable that episodes of rejection and over-immunosuppression are more likely to enhance the risk of HCV recurrence through immunological mechanisms. Both complete prevention of rejection and optimization of immunosuppression should represent the main goals towards reducing the rate of graft HCV reinfection. In conclusion, post-transplant HCV recurrence remains an unresolved, thorny problem because many factors remain obscure and need to be better determined.

Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus-positive recipients in Japan: results of a nationwide survey

A nationwide survey of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive recipients was performed in Japan. A total of 514 recipients are reported and included in the study. The cumulative patient survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 72% and 63%, respectively. Of the 514 recipients, 142 patients (28%) died until the end of the observation, among which the leading cause was recurrent hepatitis C (42 cases). According to Cox regression multivariate analysis, donor age (>40), non-right liver graft, acute rejection episode, and absence of a sustained virologic response were independent prognostic factors. Of the 514 recipients, 361 underwent antiviral treatment mainly with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (preemptive treatment in 150 patients and treatment for confirmed recurrent hepatitis in 211). The dose reduction rate and discontinuation rate were 40% and 42%, respectively, with a sustained virologic response rate of 43%. In conclusion, patient survival of HCV-positive recipients after LDLT was good, with a 10-year survival of 63%. Right liver graft might be preferable for HCV-positive recipients in an LDLT setting.

Hepatitis C disease severity in living versus deceased donor liver transplant recipients: an extended observation study

Donor factors influence hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease severity in liver transplant (LT) recipients. Living donors, because they are typically young and have short cold ischemic times, may be advantageous for HCV-infected patients. Among HCV-infected patients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) surviving >90 days and followed for a median 4.7 years, advanced fibrosis (Ishak stage ≥3) and graft loss were determined. The 5-year cumulative risk of advanced fibrosis was 44% and 37% in living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT) patients (P = 0.16), respectively. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activity at LT (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.38 for doubling of AST, P = 0.005) and biliary strictures (HR = 2.68, P = 0.0001) were associated with advanced fibrosis, but LDLT was not (HR = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.69, P = 0.63). The 5-year unadjusted patient and graft survival probabilities were 79% and 78% in LDLT, and 77% and 75% in DDLT (P = 0.43 and 0.32), with 27% and 20% of LDLT and DDLT graft losses due to HCV (P = 0.45). Biliary strictures (HR = 2.25, P = 0.0006), creatinine at LT (HR = 1.74 for doubling of creatinine, P = 0.0004), and AST at LT (HR = 1.36 for doubling of AST, P = 0.004) were associated with graft loss, but LDLT was not (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.49-1.18, P = 0.23).

CONCLUSION

Donor type does not affect the probability of advanced fibrosis or patient and graft survival in HCV-infected recipients. Thus, while LDLT offers the advantage of shorter wait times, there is no apparent benefit for HCV disease progression. Biliary strictures have a negative effect on HCV fibrosis severity and graft survival, and a high AST at LT may be an important predictor of fibrosis risk post-LT.

Outcome of using small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation recipients with high model for end-stage liver disease scores: a single center experience

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of small-for-size grafts (SFSG) in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) on outcomes of recipients with different model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score in a single liver transplant center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data of 118 patients underwent right-lobe AALDLT from January 2004 to December 2011 were retrospectively analyzed, Patients were divided into Group L (MELD score ≤ 25) and Group H (MELD score > 25) according to MELD score. The patients were further stratified into Group LS (MELD score ≤ 25, GBWR < 0.8%), Group LN (MELD score ≤ 25, GBWR ≥ 0.8%), Group HS (MELD score > 25, GBWR < 0.8%), and Group HN (MELD score > 25, GBWR ≥ 0.8%) to investigate the impact of graft size on recipients' complications and outcomes. Pre-operative characteristics, post-operative complications graded by the Clavien score and patient survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

MELD scores between the two groups were significant different (12.4 ± 4.9 vs 34.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.026). There was no significant difference in preoperative demographic data as well as postoperative liver function. Complication rate, length of ICU and hospital stay, graft loss, and mortality were similar in both groups. The 1- and 3- year survival were similar between group H and group L. When recipients were further stratified into group LS, LN, HS, and HN, no significant difference was found among groups in 1- and 3- year survival rate. In multivariate analysis, HCC was not a predictor for long term survival.

CONCLUSION

Our single institution experience demonstrates that it is safe to use SFSGs in high pre-MELD score recipients with the improvement of intensive care and the selection of listing criteria.

[Liver transplantation with living donor : current aspects, perspectives and significance in Germany]

More than 20 years ago living donor liver transplantation was introduced into clinical practice. Specifics of this method were developed initially for children and later on for adults particularly in regions where a liver transplantation program using deceased donors was not readily available. The most sensitive aspect of living donation, namely the danger to a healthy relative in order to perform the transplantation is immanent in the system and, thus, it is definitively a secondary option as compared to deceased organ donation. Following worldwide initial euphoria the numbers have markedly decreased in the western world since the start of the new millennium. In Asian countries in particular, much work has been done to optimize the procedure so that the donor safety and the outcome quality for the recipient have been impressively demonstrated in large patient populations. There is still a severe donor organ shortage and the option to allocate an optimal (partial) organ on an individual basis by living donation has given new impact to the discussion about a further rise in the profile of living donations here as well. The new version of the German transplantation legislation implemented in summer 2012 requires a number of conditions with respect to insurance for living donors. The current state and perspectives are presented here.

Living-donor liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompression. In areas with low deceased-donor organ availability like Japan, living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is similarly indicated for HCV cirrhosis as deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in Western countries and accepted as an established treatment for HCV-cirrhosis, and the results are equivalent to those of DDLT. To prevent graft failure due to recurrent hepatitis C, antiviral treatment with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. In contrast to DDLT, many Japanese LDLT centers have reported modified treatment regimens as best efforts to secure first graft, such as aggressive preemptive antiviral treatment, escalation of dosages, and elongation of treatment duration.

Predictive factors of early graft loss in living donor liver transplantation

CONTEXT

Living donor liver transplantation has become an alternative to reduce the lack of organ donation.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors predictive of early graft loss in the first 3 months after living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

Seventy-eight adults submitted to living donor liver transplantation were divided into group I with 62 (79.5%) patients with graft survival longer than 3 months, and group II with 16 (20.5%) patients who died and/or showed graft failure within 3 months after liver transplantation. The variables analyzed were gender, age, etiology of liver disease, Child-Pugh classification, model of end-stage liver disease (MELD score), pretransplantation serum sodium level, and graft weight-to-recipient body weight (GRBW) ratio. The GRBW ratio was categorized into < 0.8 and MELD score into >18. The chi-square test, Student t-test and uni- and multivariate analysis were used for the evaluation of risk factors for early graft loss.

RESULTS

MELD score <18 (P<0.001) and serum sodium level > 135 mEq/L (P = 0.03) were higher in group II than in group I. In the multivariate analysis MELD scores > 18 (P<0.001) and GRBW ratios < 0.8 (P<0.04) were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

MELD scores >18 and GRBW < 0.8 ratios are associated with higher probability of graft failure after living donor liver transplantation.

Living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatitis C virus-related diseases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides a timely alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatitis C virus-related (HCV-related) diseases in the circumstances of severe organ dearth. However, the patient and graft outcomes, and recurrence of HCV after LDLT remain controversial. Here we sought to compare the post-transplant outcomes after LDLT and DDLT.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database were searched for eligible literatures. The major end points were patient survival, graft survival, recurrence rate, and acute rejection. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using random-effects model to synthesize the results. Heterogeneity and publication bias were quantitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 2024 participants were included in this analysis. We found comparable patient survival between groups (1-year: OR, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.48-1.26, p=0.31; 2-year: OR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.41-1.23, p=0.23; 3-year: OR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.5-1.12, p=0.18; 4-year: OR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.43-1.95, p=0.83; 5-year: OR, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.53-2.14, p=0.86, respectively). Although 1- and 3-year graft survivals were inferior in LDLT, 2-, 4- and 5-year graft survivals were similar. HCV recurrence rates and acute rejection rates were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT was equivalent to DDLT in terms of patient survival, long-term graft survival, HCV recurrence, and acute rejection rates, with potentially lower short-term patient and graft survival.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma related to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are currently the most common indications for liver transplantation. The number of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) procedures has increased given the shortage of donor organs from deceased donors. However, recurrence of HCV infection is universal and affects graft survival. This mini-review compared the outcomes for HCV-positive recipients after LDLT with those after deceased donor liver transplantation.

Is there an advantage of living over deceased donation in liver transplantation?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established strategy to decrease the mortality in the waiting list and recent studies have demonstrated its value even in patients with low MELD score. However, LDLT is still under a high level of scrutiny because of its technical complexity and ethical challenges as demonstrated by a decline in the number of procedures performed in the last decade in Western Countries. Many aspects make LDLT different from deceased donor liver transplantation, including timing of transplantation, procedure-related complications as well as immunological factors that may affect graft outcomes. Our review suggests that in selected cases, LDLT offers significant advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and should be used more liberally.

The adverse pharmacology of calcineurin inhibitors and their impact on hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: implications for clinical practice

Calcineurin inhibitors are widely used as maintenance immunosuppressants in solid-organ transplantation to minimize the risk of allograft rejection. Although the use of these agents has transformed the outcomes for patient and graft survival, this has come at a cost, notably the well-known adverse events of nephrotoxicity and metabolic abnormalities, to name a few. Over the last decade, tremendous interest has also focused on the impact of these medications on the replication of hepatitis C virus (HCV), with cyclosporine in particular having a negative effect on viral replication in vitro. Although small retrospective studies suggested that there may be a beneficial effect with cyclosporine on the progression of recurrent HCV and response to interferon, these findings have not been validated in several well-designed randomized controlled trial studies. The authors will review the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of these well-known drugs and discuss the impact of these medications on the natural history of HCV recurrence after liver transplantation.

Prevention of hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: An update

Hepatitis C related liver failure and hepatocarcinoma are the most common indications for liver transplantation in Western countries. Recurrent hepatitis C infection of the allograft is universal and immediate following liver transplantation, being associated with accelerated progression to cirrhosis, graft loss and death. Graft and patient survival is reduced in liver transplant recipients with recurrent Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection compared to HCV-negative recipients. Many variables may impact on recurrent HCV liver disease. Overall, excess immunosuppression is believed to be a key factor; however, no immunosuppressive regimen has been identified to be more beneficial or less harmful. Donor age limitations, exclusion of moderately to severely steatotic livers and minimization of ischemic times could be a potential strategy to minimize the severity of HCV disease in transplanted subjects. After transplantation, antiviral therapy based on pegylated IFN alpha with or without ribavirin is associated with far less results than that reported for immunocompetent HCV-infected patients. New findings in the field of immunotherapy and genomic medicine applied to this context are promising.

Liver transplantation in the setting of chronic HCV

Recurrent HCV disease is the most common cause of graft loss and patient mortality in HCV-infected liver transplant (LT) recipients. Risk factors for more severe recurrence that are potentially modifiable are older donor age, prolonged cold ischaemia time, prior treated acute rejection, CMV hepatitis, IL28B donor genotype, and post-LT insulin resistance. The most effective means of preventing HCV recurrence is eradicating HCV prior to LT. Select wait-list candidates with compensated or mildly decompensated disease can be considered for antiviral treatment with peginterferon, ribavirin (and protease inhibitor if genotype 1). For the majority of LT patients, HCV treatment must be delayed until post-transplant. Treatment is generally undertaken if histologic severity reaches grade 3 or 4 necroinflammation or stage ≥2 fibrosis, or if cholestatic hepatitis. Achievement of sustained viral response (SVR) post-LT is associated with stabilization of fibrosis and improved graft survival. SVR is attained in ~30% of patients treated with peginterferon and ribavirin. Poor tolerability of therapy is a limitation. Combination therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin is anticipated to increase efficacy but with higher rates of adverse effects and challenges in managing drug-drug interactions between the protease inhibitors and calcineurin inhibitors/sirolimus.

Management of HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly prevalent and lethal neoplasia, the management of which has significantly improved during the last few years. A better knowledge of the natural history of the tumor and the development of staging systems that stratify patients according to the characteristics of the tumor, the liver disease, and the performance status, such as the BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) system, have led to a better prediction of prognosis and to a most appropriate treatment approach. Today curative therapies (resection, transplantation, ablation) can improve survival in patients diagnosed at an early HCC stage and offer a potential long-term cure. Patients with intermediate stage HCC benefit from chemoembolization and those diagnosed at advanced stage benefit from sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects. In this article we review the current management in HCC and the new advances in this field.

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.

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompensation. The use of poor quality organs, particularly from older donors, has a highly negative impact on the severity of recurrence and patient/graft survival. Although immunosuppressive regimens have a considerable impact on the outcome, the optimal regimen after liver transplantation for HCV-infected patients remains unclear. Disease progression monitoring with protocol biopsy and new noninvasive methods is essential for predicting patient/graft outcome and starting antiviral treatment with the appropriate timing. Antiviral treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. Living-donor liver transplantation is now widely accepted as an established treatment for HCV cirrhosis and the results are equivalent to those of deceased donor liver transplantation.

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related end-stage cirrhosis with/without hepatocellular carcinoma is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft re-infection is the rule, resulting in HCV-related graft disease. The natural history of recurrent hepatitis is variable; overall, progression to cirrhosis occurs in 20-30% and allograft failure in 10% after 5-10 years from transplantation. The use of poor quality organs, particularly from old donors, has a significant negative impact on disease severity and transplant outcome. In contrast, antiviral therapy, particularly if it results in permanent eradication of the virus, is associated with improved histology, reduced rate of graft decompensation and enhanced outcome. Disease monitoring, through protocol liver biopsies and new non-invasive tools, is essential to select patients at need of antiviral therapy. Peginterferon with ribavirin, used similarly to what is done in the non-transplant setting, is currently the treatment of choice; sustained viral response is achieved in about 35% of cases. Side effects, particularly anemia, are extremely frequent and sometimes severe (rejection, de novo autoimmune hepatitis). Retransplantation (RT) is the last option for the small subset of patients with allograft failure due to HCV recurrence who fulfil minimum criteria based on RT survival models.

Management of recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation

Recurrence of hepatitis C virus remains a near-universal phenomenon after liver transplantation (LT) and is responsible for the high morbidity and low survival seen in these patients. The severity of recurrent disease varies depending on multiple factors, only some of which are modifiable. Antiviral therapy is associated with improved outcomes, but viral clearance is only attainable in a small percentage of this patient population. This patient population is in need of new therapeutic options, and it remains to be seen whether direct-acting antiviral agents will be the answer to this ongoing therapeutic question.

Survival after liver transplantation using hepatitis C virus-positive donor allografts: case-controlled analysis of the UNOS database

BACKGROUND

Numerous reports have documented reduced graft and patient survival after use of hepatitis C (HCV) seropositive allografts in liver transplantation (OLT). We aimed to examine if the use of a HCV+ liver allograft affects patient and graft survivals compared to HCV- donor allografts in a case-controlled analysis of the united network for organ sharing (UNOS) database.

METHODS

We examined 63,149 liver transplants (61,905 donors HCV-; 1,244 donors HCV+) from the UNOS standard transplant analysis and research (STAR) file from 1987 to 2007. Donor and recipient demographics and outcomes were collected in which donor HCV serology was complete. A case-controlled cohort from 11 donor and recipient variables comparing donor HCV- and HCV+ allografts (n=540 in each group) was created using propensity scores with a matching algorithm. Graft and patient survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

Significant differences were evident in the unadjusted cohort between recipients who received HCV+ and HCV- allografts, including HCV+ recipients, donor and recipient age, and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception cases. Use of HCV+ allograft resulted in significantly lower graft survival (8.1 vs. 10.6 years; P=0.001) and patient survival (10.2 vs. 12.3 years; P=0.01) after OLT. In the matched cohort, HCV seropositivity had no detrimental effect on the graft (P=0.57) or patient (P=0.78) survival after OLT.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first population-based analysis to show that after adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics there was no difference in graft or patient survival with the use of HCV+ donor liver allografts compared to HCV- donor liver allografts.