Steroid-free induction and preemptive antiviral therapy for liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C: a preliminary report from a prospective randomized study

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.

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.

Anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies for the prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antibody induction therapy aims at preventing acute cellular rejection by reducing T-cell proliferation and activation. We evaluated the efficacy and side effects of two anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies (IL2RAs), basiliximab and daclizumab, for prevention of liver transplant rejection in adult patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on basiliximab or daclizumab were identified by searching multiple databases and reference lists published up to July, 2015. Endpoints included acute rejection events and mortality rates. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and pooled for a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Patients treated with IL2RA-based therapy were less likely to suffer acute rejection compared to control group (steroid or steroid-free). Patients in all groups had similar mortality rate. In the subgroup analysis, basiliximab and daclizumab-based therapies did not reduced acute rejection rate. No significant difference was found in mortality rate between both types of IL-2RA treatment groups and control groups. In the subgroup analysis regarding experimental design, no significant difference in the acute rejection and mortality rates were found between "steroid plus IL2RA versus steroid" and "IL2RA versus steroid" groups.

CONCLUSION

IL2RA-based induction therapy reduces rate of acute rejection events but does not reduce mortality. However, optimal regimen relating to IL2RA-based induction therapy remains undetermined. KEY MESSAGES IL2RA-based induction therapy was effective in reduction of acute rejection events but it did not reduce mortality rate. Basiliximab-based induction therapy might be more effective than daclizumab-based induction therapy in reduction of acute rejection. No significant difference in acute rejection and mortality rate was found between types of IL2RAs or IL2RA-steroid combined therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of a Steroid-Free Immunosuppressive Regimen after Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background/Aims

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an immunosuppressive regimen without steroids after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Sixty-six HCC patients who underwent an immunosuppressive regimen without steroids after LT were enrolled in the steroid-free group. The preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 132 HCC recipients who were placed on an immunosuppressive regimen using steroids (steroid group). The incidence of acute rejection, HBV recurrence, infection, and new-onset diabetes mellitus and the overall and tumor-free survival rates were compared between the two groups.

Results

Differences were not observed in the 1-year (83.3% vs 97.0%, p=0.067), 3-year (65.4% vs 75.8%, p=0.067) or 5-year (56.3% vs 70.7%, p=0.067) patient survival rates or in the 1-year (62.1% vs 72.7%, p=0.067), 3-year (49.8% vs 63.6%, p=0.067) or 5-year (48.6% vs 63.6%, p=0.067) tumor-free survival rates between the two groups, respectively. In the steroid-free group, the patients who fulfilled the Milan criteria had higher overall and tumor-free survival rates than those in the steroid group (p<0.001). The prevalence of HBV recurrence (3.0% vs 13.6%, p=0.02) was significantly lower in the steroid-free group compared with the steroid group.

Conclusions

After LT, an immunosuppressive regimen without steroids could be a safe and feasible treatment for HBV-related HCC patients, thus resulting in the reduction of HBV recurrence. Based on the observed survival rates, patients who fulfill the Milan criteria may derive benefits from steroid-free immunosuppression.

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.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Risk of serious opportunistic infections after solid organ transplantation: interleukin-2 receptor antagonists versus polyclonal antibodies. A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate and quantify the risk of serious opportunistic infections after induction with polyclonal antibodies versus IL-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RAs) in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were followed and random-effects models were performed.

RESULTS

70 randomized clinical trials (10,106 patients) were selected: 36 polyclonal antibodies (n = 3377), and 34 IL-2RAs (n = 6729). Compared to controls, polyclonal antibodies showed higher risk of serious opportunistic infections (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.34-2.80; p < 0.0001); IL-2RAs were associated with lower risk of serious opportunistic infections (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; p = 0.009). Polyclonal antibodies were associated with higher risk of bacterial (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.00-2.50; p = 0.049) and viral infections (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 1.60-3.49; p < 0.0001), while IL-2RAs were associated with lower risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56-0.97; p = 0.032). Adjusted indirect comparison: compared to polyclonal antibodies, IL-2RAs were associated with lower risk of serious opportunistic infections (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.49; p < 0.0001), bacterial infections (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.67; p < 0.0001) and CMV disease (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.98; p = 0.043). Results remained consistent across allografts.

CONCLUSION

The risk of serious opportunistic infections, bacterial infections and CMV disease were all significantly decreased with IL-2RAs compared to polyclonal antibodies.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, or hospital stay and are likely to increase overall transplant costs. All liver transplantation patients receive antibiotic prophylaxis. This is an update of our 2008 Cochrane systematic review on the same topic in which we identified seven randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in people undergoing liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status. We excluded quasi-randomised and other observational studies for assessment of benefits, but not for harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available-case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only seven trials for inclusion, including 614 participants. Only one trial was of low risk of bias risk. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. There were five comparisons in the seven trials: selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics; prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics; and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, participants were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In one trial, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic) was compared with inactive lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In the remaining trial, different doses of G-CSF and placebo were compared. There was no trial comparing different antibiotic prophylactic regimens in people undergoing liver transplantation. Most trials included adults undergoing elective liver transplantation. There was no significant difference in proportion of people who died or required retransplantation between the intervention and control groups in any of the five comparison groups. MORTALITY There were no differences between 190 participants (three trials); 5/87 (adjusted proportion: 6.2%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 7/103 (6.8%) in inactive control group; RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.72); 63 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR - not estimable; 64 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 0/65 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; and 194 participants (one trial); 22/124 (17.7%) in G-CSF group versus 10/70 (14.3%) in placebo group; RR 1.24 (95% 0.62 to 2.47). RETRANSPLANTATION There were no differences between 132 participants (two trials); 4/58 (adjusted proportion: 6.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 6/74 (8.1%) in inactive control group; RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.85); 63 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 2.91 (0.12 to 68.81); 64 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR 3.00 (95% CI 0.13 to 71.00); 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 1/65 (1.5%) in prebiotics group; RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.9); and 194 participants (one trial); 10/124 (7.1%) in G-CSF group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in placebo group; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.17).There was no significant difference in the graft rejections, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between the intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons. Overall, 193/611 participants (31.6%) developed infective complications. The proportion of people who developed infective complications and the number of infective complication episodes were significantly higher in the selective bowel decontamination group than in the prebiotics with probiotics group (1 study; 63 participants; 15/32 (46.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 (12.9%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 3.63; 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74 and 23/32 participants (0.72 infective complications per participant) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 participants (0.13 infective complications per participant) in prebiotics with probiotics group; rate ratio 5.58; 95% CI 1.94 to 16.09). There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who developed infection and the number of infection episodes between the intervention group and control group in any of the other comparisons.No trials reported quality of life and overall serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination may even increase the rate of infections compared with prebiotics with probiotics. The confidence intervals were wide and further randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.

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

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids (CS) have been standard immunosuppression to prevent and treat rejection. However, CS are associated with increased risk of infection, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and accelerated hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence post-orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This study assesses the safety and efficacy of CS-free immunosuppressive regimen in adult OLT.

METHODS

A two-yr, prospective, randomized study of CS with delayed withdrawal (CS) or CS-free regimen with basiliximab, tacrolimus, and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) was performed in 39 patients (CS=20; CS-free=19). CS group received intra-operative methylprednisolone weaned by six months. HCV patients had HCV PCR pre-OLT and 0.5, one, three, and six months post-OLT. Protocol liver biopsies were performed at OLT, 2 and 24 wk post-OLT or when indicated.

RESULTS

Rejection occurred in two patients. Patient survival at one yr (100% vs. 95%), three yr (85% vs. 63%), and five yr (80% vs. 63%) post-OLT were similar between CS and CS-free group, respectively. Death-censored graft survival at one yr (100% vs. 95%), three yr (85% vs. 63%), and five yr (75% vs. 63%) were also similar. The risk of new-onset DM, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and weight gain was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

CS avoidance with basiliximab, calcineurin inhibitor, and EC-MPS is safe and effective as CS- containing immunosuppression in adult OLT.

Immunosuppression in HCV-positive liver-transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the historical and recent literature as it pertains to current immunosuppression regimens in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive (+) liver-transplant recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings suggest that there are unique differences between HCV transplant recipients and non-HCV transplant recipients, not only in the graft's inflammatory response, but also to the treatments used to prevent and combat rejection.

SUMMARY

HCV (+) transplant recipients present unique challenges. Over the years, there has been progress but there is clearly no consensus regarding the optimal immunosuppressive medications or drug regimens; however, there continues to be advancements in the management of patients with HCV. Though current studies do not provide clear evidence as to optimal immunosuppression, they do identify questions ideally addressed by large, randomized controlled trials.

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

OBJECTIVES

Steroids are a mainstay of treatment in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and are associated with significant morbidity. This trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of steroids avoidance.

METHODS

Patients undergoing OLT between June 2002 and April 2005 were entered into a prospective, randomized trial of complete steroids avoidance and followed until November 2011. Recipients received either standard therapy (n = 50) or complete steroids avoidance (n = 50). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The mean follow-up of all recipients was 2095 ± 117 days. Sixteen (32%) recipients randomized to the steroids avoidance group ultimately received steroids for clinical indications.

RESULTS

Incidences of diabetes and hypertension prior to or after OLT were similar in both groups, as was the incidence of rejection. Patient and graft survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were lower in the steroids avoidance group than in the standard therapy group (patient survival: 1-year, 80% versus 86%; 3-year, 68% versus 76%; 5-year, 60% versus 72%; graft survival: 1-year, 76% versus 76%; 3-year, 64% versus 74%; 5-year, 56% versus 72%), but the differences were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete steroids avoidance provides liver transplant recipients with minimal benefit and appears to result in a concerning trend towards decreased graft and recipient survival. The present data support the use of at least a short course of steroids after liver transplantation.

Metabolic syndrome after liver transplantation: Preventable illness or common consequence?

The metabolic syndrome is common after liver transplant being present in approximately half of recipients. It has been associated with adverse outcomes such as progression of hepatitis C and major vascular events. As the United States population ages and the rate of obesity increases, prevention of the metabolic syndrome in the post-transplant population deserves special consideration. Currently, the metabolic syndrome after transplant appears at least two times more common than observed rates in the general population. Specific guidelines for patients after transplant does not exist, therefore prevention rests upon knowledge of risk factors and the presence of modifiable elements. The current article will focus on risk factors for the development of the metabolic syndrome after transplant, will highlight potentially modifiable factors and propose potential areas for intervention. As in the non-transplant population, behavioral choices might have a major role. Opportunities exist in this regard for health prevention studies incorporating lifestyle changes. Other factors such as the need for immunosuppression, and the changing characteristics of wait listed patients are not modifiable, but are important to know in order to identify persons at higher risk. Although immunosuppression after transplant is unavoidable, the contribution of different agents to the development of components of the metabolic syndrome is also discussed. Ultimately, an increased risk of the metabolic syndrome after transplant is likely unavoidable, however, there are many opportunities to reduce the prevalence.

Management of hepatitis C virus infection recurrence after liver transplantation: an overview

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the major indication for liver transplantation worldwide. Its recurrence is virtually universal. Once reinfection is established, progression to cirrhosis occurs in 25%-30% of recipients within 5 years. Several studies have attempted to identify the ideal antiviral treatment for liver transplant recipients. At present, the management of recurrent HCV infection in liver transplant recipients is based on widely accepted indications, which represent a reliable guide to identify the "ideal" candidate for therapy, when therapy should be started, and what is to be expected in terms of side effects and response to treatment.

Impact of immunosuppression without steroids on rejection and hepatitis C virus evolution after liver transplantation: results of a prospective randomized study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of a steroid-free immunosuppression on hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence. A total of 198 liver transplantation (LT) patients were randomized to receive immunosuppression with basiliximab and cyclosporine, either with prednisone (steroid [St] group) or without prednisone (no steroids [NoSt] group). The group of 89 HCV-infected patients was followed up with protocol biopsies for 2 years after LT. This group of HCV patients are the patients evaluated in the present study. The rejection rate was 19% (St: 21% versus NoSt: 17%; P = 0.67). Patients in the St group had a slightly higher rate of bacterial infections (59% versus 38%; P = 0.05). Almost all patients had histological HCV-recurrence (St: 39/40 (97%) versus NoSt: 40/41 (97%); P = 1). The percentage of accumulated biopsies with grade 4 portal inflammation at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were, 23%, 49%, and 49% in the NoSt group, compared to 33%, 55%, and 69% in the St group, respectively (P = 0.04 at 2 years). The percentage of accumulated biopsies with grade 3 or 4 fibrosis at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 0%, 8%, and 22% in the NoSt group, compared to 8%, 19%, and 31% in the St group, respectively. Immunosuppression without steroids in HCV patients is safe, reduces bacterial infections and metabolic complications, and improves histological short-term evolution of HCV recurrence.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, and overall transplant costs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on infections, adverse effects of intervention, ITU (intensive therapy unit) stay, and hospital stay. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis and risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials for inclusion including 614 patients. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, patients were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In another trial, different doses of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and placebo were compared. The remaining two trials compared lactobacillus with fibres versus fibres alone and early enteral feeding versus no intervention. Only one trial was of low bias-risk. There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome between the selective bowel decontamination and the control groups. Selective bowel decontamination increased incidence of cholangitis (RR 4.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 20.35), incidence of bacterial infection (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74), and hospital stay (WMD 4.00, 95% CI 3.14 to 4.86) than the participants in the combined pre- and probiotic group. Hospital stay was prolonged in the selective bowel decontamination group compared to the prebiotic group. There was a statistically significant lower occurrence of urinary infection in the pre- and probiotic group than in the prebiotic group. The number of people experiencing gram-negative bacterial infection was not significantly lower in the probiotic group (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17). The ITU stay was lower in the probiotic group (WMD -1.41 days, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.73). There were no differences in any outcomes in the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination increases the risk of infection and hospital stay compared to prebiotics and probiotics. The use of prebiotics and probiotics offers promise. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary.

Steroid avoidance in liver transplantation: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized trials

Steroid use after liver transplantation (LT) has been associated with diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and hepatitis C (HCV) recurrence. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of 30 publications representing 19 randomized trials that compared steroid-free with steroid-based immunosuppression (IS). There were no differences in death, graft loss, and infection. Steroid-free recipients demonstrated a trend toward reduced hypertension [relative risk (RR) 0.84, P = 0.08], and statistically significant decreases in cholesterol (standard mean difference -0.41, P < 0.001) and cytomegalovirus (RR 0.52, P = 0.001). In studies where steroids were replaced by another IS agent, the risks of diabetes (RR 0.29, P < 0.001), rejection (RR 0.68, P = 0.03), and severe rejection (RR 0.37, P = 0.001) were markedly lower in steroid-free arms. In studies in which steroids were not replaced, rejection rates were higher in steroid-free arms (RR 1.31, P = 0.02) and reduction of diabetes was attenuated (RR 0.74, P = 0.2). HCV recurrence was lower with steroid avoidance and, although no individual trial reached statistical significance, meta-analysis demonstrated this important effect (RR 0.90, P = 0.03). However, we emphasize the heterogeneity of trials performed to date and, as such, do not recommend basing clinical guidelines on our conclusions. We believe that a large, multicenter trial will better define the role of steroid-free regimens in LT.

Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression with daclizumab in HCV(+) liver transplant recipients: 1-year interim results of the HCV-3 study

This work is a 1-yr interim analysis of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the effect of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression on hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV(+)) liver transplant recipients following liver transplantation (LT). Patients received tacrolimus and corticosteroids (Arm 1; n = 80); tacrolimus, corticosteroids, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arm 2; n = 79); or daclizumab induction, tacrolimus, and MMF (Arm 3; n = 153). At 1 yr, 64.1%, 63.4%, and 69.4% of patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of freedom from rejection, freedom from HCV recurrence, and freedom from treatment failure, respectively. Excellent patient and graft survival did not differ significantly among treatment arms. Freedom from HCV recurrence at 1 yr was 61.8 +/- 6.2%, 60.1 +/- 6.1%, and 67.0 +/- 4.3% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = not significant). Freedom from rejection was significantly higher in Arm 3 compared to Arm 1 (93.0 +/- 2.2% vs. 81.9 +/- 4.4%; P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified acute rejection (hazard ratio = 2.692; P = 0.001) and donor age (hazard ratio = 1.015; P = 0.001) as significant risk factors for HCV recurrence. HCV recurrence was not influenced by recipient demographics, HCV genotype, or immunosuppression. In conclusion, these results suggest that a corticosteroid-free regimen of tacrolimus and MMF following daclizumab induction is safe and effective in HCV(+) liver transplant recipients.

Recurrent viral liver disease (hepatitis B and C) after liver transplantation

Hepatitis C represents more than 35% of liver transplant candidates worldwide. Meanwhile, hepatitis B continues to be an important cause of end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia and Africa. Recurrent viral liver disease is a significant event after liver transplantation and continues to be one of the main causes of graft dysfunction and loss in the middle and long-term follow-up. Mechanisms of liver reinfection and disease recurrence vary between these two viruses and pre-emptive as well as the therapeutic approaches are different. Hepatitis B patients can be managed with immune globulin immediately after liver transplant and various agents such as nucleotide and nucleoside analogues can be associated. As a result, disease recurrence has been delayed or prevented in these patients. Individuals transplanted for hepatitis C are known to have universal reinfection and a high rate of disease recurrence has been reported in the literature. Strategies to treat hepatitis C recurrence are limited to the use of pegylated interferon and ribavirin when disease is demonstrated histologically and biochemically, although other strategies have been described with limited or no success. We herein review the mechanisms of disease recurrence and the current as well as the future therapeutic approaches to prevent and to treat these diseases.

The role of antibody induction in liver transplantation

PURPOSE

Antilymphocyte antibody induction has been used in liver transplantation for decades, initially as part of a triple or quadruple immunosuppressive protocol to prevent rejection or in the treatment of steroid-resistant rejection. More recently there has been renewed interest in antibody induction in liver transplantation as part of a strategy to eliminate or reduce one or more immunosuppressive agents. This review highlights recent advances in the role of antibody induction in liver transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Primary interest in antibody induction now falls into four major categories: steroid avoidance; calcineurin inhibitor reduction as a renal sparing protocol; minimal immunosuppression protocols (tolerance); and limiting hepatitis C recurrence. These protocols usually involve short courses of antibody induction in the peritransplant period, with decreased reliance on other agents after transplantation. Recent reports demonstrate several beneficial effects of antibody induction and suggest that, in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era, antibody induction in immunosuppressive strategies in liver transplantation will become increasingly important.

SUMMARY

Antibody induction in liver transplantation confers valuable benefit in limiting the adverse effects of maintenance immunosuppression. Antibodies allow the subsequent reduction or elimination of other agents to minimize overall immunosuppression.

Recurrent hepatitis C post-transplantation: where are we now and where do we go from here? A report from the Canadian transplant hepatology workshop

Approximately 400 liver transplants are performed in Canada every year and close to 6000 per year in the United States. Forty per cent to 45% of all liver transplants are performed for patients with underlying hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease. These patients have a different natural history, new complication risks and different treatment efficacy than nontransplant HCV patients. Every effort must be made to identify those patients at highest risk for progressive liver disease post-transplant. Recurrent HCV is an Achilles' heel to transplant hepatology. The true natural history of this disease is only starting to unravel and many questions remain unanswered on the optimal management of these patients after liver transplantation. The present report summarizes the literature and ongoing research needs that are specific to HCV-related liver transplantation.

Antiviral therapy for hepatitis C in the setting of liver transplantation

Hepatitis C viremia after liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) liver disease is universal. Progressive HCV disease after transplantation is the leading cause of death, graft failure, and retransplantation. Whether to treat, with which agents, and timing of therapy are unanswered questions. Timing options include pretransplantation, prophylactic, post-transplantation preemptive, and post-transplantation recurrence-based therapy. The latter is most commonly utilized. There are little data for each of these, much less comparisons. Pegylated interferon-alpha has supplanted standard interferon-alpha due to increased efficacy and is generally used in combination with ribavirin (RBV). Efficacy is less than in nontransplant settings due to immunosuppression, an increased prevalence of genotype 1 HCV, patient comorbidities, and decreased functional status. Administration of HCV therapy to cirrhotic patients prior to transplantation may eradicate or suppress HCV and prevent or reduce severity of recurrence. Sustained virological response (SVR) as high as 50% was attained in genotypes 2 or 3 HCV. Comparison of preemptive and histology-based post-transplantation HCV therapy should be done, and more data will be available on pretransplantation therapy. Post-transplant patients are less tolerant of therapy, particularly RBV. SVR, the primary goal of therapy, likely halts disease progression, but only 20% to 30% of treated patients achieve SVR. Preemptive therapy early after transplantation may have advantages due to the potential to delay or blunt severity of graft infection and recurrent hepatitis. In post-transplant therapy, RBV toxicity is attenuated in relation to decreased renal function, and side effects of interferon are more prominent. An ongoing trial will assess preemptive therapy with treatment after histologic recurrence. Novel anti-HCV therapies such as protease and polymerase inhibitors are emerging. These must be tested with urgency in the transplant setting. Retransplantation for progressive HCV disease is more controversial due to poor outcomes, graft shortage, and disease recurrence.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the leading cause of endstage liver disease in Western and Asian countries. However, after liver transplantation, HCV recurs in virtually all patients, and estimated HCV-related graft cirrhosis at 5-year follow-up is 30%. Although immunosuppression accounts for a major part of the accelerated progression of HCV in the transplant population, the best immunosuppression for recipients with HCV that could avoid such complication remains unknown at present. Combination therapy of interferon and ribavirin is thought to be the most effective for the treatment or prophylaxis of HCV infection. However, who should be treated, when treatment should be initiated, and with what agent should patients with HCV infection be treated are still unknown. The current data on HCV recurrence in patients who have received either living- or deceased-donor liver transplantation are controversial, but they are, presumably, similar. Thus, to avoid HCV recurrence in living-donor liver transplantation, we have to take approaches similar to those used for patients receiving deceased-donor liver transplantation. Based on reports from major transplant centers around the world, we consider the best strategy for liver transplantation-related HCV infection is steroid-free immunosuppression and preemptive low-dose interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. Here we describe our experience with living-donor liver transplantion for patients with hepatitis C at Osaka University. There is a need for standardizing the treatment for HCV infection. This can only be achieved through collaborative work between various liver transplant centers worldwide.

Immunosuppression without steroids in liver transplantation is safe and reduces infection and metabolic complications: results from a prospective multicenter randomized study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a steroid-free immunosuppression protocol.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2004, 198 liver-transplant patients were randomized to receive immunosuppression with Basiliximab and cyclosporine, with (St Group) or without (NoSt Group) prednisone. The primary end points were acute rejection, and patient and graft survival. The secondary end points were infection, metabolic complications, and hepatitis C-virus recurrence.

RESULTS

Overall rejection rate was 15%, with no differences (St: 13% vs NoSt: 18%; P=0.33). Infection rate was similar in both groups (St: 51% vs NoSt: 47%; P=0.56), but diabetic patients in the St Group had a significantly higher rate of bacterial infections (St: 54% vs NoSt: 14%; P=0.005). The six-month protocol biopsies showed hepatitis C recurrence in 90% of patients, without differences between groups. Hypertension was more frequent in the St Group (St: 44% vs NoSt: 25%; P=0.006). De novo diabetes rate was higher in the St Group (month 1: St: 29% vs NoSt: 18%; P=0.06), with higher glycatedHb (5.1+/-1.1 vs 4.4+/-0.8; P=0.002). Six-month survival rates were similar (St: 89% vs NoSt: 94%, P=0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Immunosuppression without steroids is safe and reduces infection and metabolic complications.

Corticosteroid-Free Strategies in Liver Transplantation

Corticosteroid avoidance is feasible and may be desirable in liver transplantation. Approximately 50% of liver transplant recipients who use calcineurin inhibitors and azathioprine do not need corticosteroids. The availability of newer agents, such as mycophenolate mofetil and antibody therapy, has increased the percentage of patients who do not need to use corticosteroids to about 75%. The feasibility of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression has been established by controlled trials demonstrating non-inferiority with respect to patterns of rejection as well as patient and graft survival. However, the evidence available to date does not unequivocally establish the benefits of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression, although some advantage has been established relating to post-transplant diabetes mellitus, cytomegalovirus infection and growth patterns in children. The effect of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in hepatitis C liver transplant recipients is yet to be resolved.