Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes

Budesonide in Liver Immunology: A Therapeutic Opportunity in Liver Transplantation

Purpose of Review

A major remaining challenge in liver transplantation is achieving the balance between adequate immunosuppression to prevent allograft rejection and minimising immunosuppression-related side effects. Systemic corticosteroids contribute to the development of multi-system adverse effects that increase recipient morbidity and mortality. Oral budesonide undergoes significant first-pass hepatic metabolism, thereby minimising systemic availability, but maintains a similar immunosuppressive impact on the liver and gastrointestinal tract as systemic corticosteroids. This review aims to explore the rationale for oral budesonide as an alternative immunosuppressant to conventional corticosteroids following liver transplantation.

Recent findings

Despite increasing evidence of efficacy and safety in other gastrointestinal conditions, research on the role of budesonide as an alternative immunosuppressant to conventional corticosteroids in the liver transplant setting remains scarce. However, existing literature suggests efficacy in the treatment and prevention of acute rejection after liver transplantation, with minimal toxicity.

Summary

The unique pharmacokinetic profile of oral budesonide may address the unmet need for a medical therapy that has efficacy but with a better safety profile compared to conventional corticosteroids in the liver transplant setting.

Safety and efficacy of early corticosteroid withdrawal in liver transplant recipients: A randomized controlled trial

Backgrounds/Aims

Prolonged use of steroids after liver transplantation (LT) significantly increases the risk of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, which can adversely affect patient outcomes. Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of early steroid withdrawal within the first year following LT.

Methods

This study was conducted as an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Liver transplant recipients were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: Group 1, in which steroids were withdrawn two weeks posttransplantation, and Group 2, in which steroids were withdrawn three months posttransplantation. This study included participants aged 20 to 70 years who were scheduled to undergo a single-organ liver transplant from a living or deceased donor at one of the four participating centers.

Results

Between November 2012 and August 2020, 115 patients were selected and randomized into two groups, with 60 in Group 1 and 55 in Group 2. The incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) was notably higher in Group 1 (32.4%) than in Group 2 (10.0%) in the per-protocol set. Although biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality did not occur, the median tacrolimus trough level/dose/weight in Group 1 exceeded that in Group 2. No significant differences in safety parameters, such as infection and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

The present study did not find a significant reduction in the incidence of NODAT in the early steroid withdrawal group. Our study suggests that steroid withdrawal three months posttransplantation is a standard and safe immunosuppressive strategy for LT patients.

Steroid Avoidance After Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant: A Cohort Analysis

Although steroid avoidance (SA) has been studied in deceased donor liver transplant, little is known about SA in living donor liver transplant (LDLT). We report the characteristics and outcomes, including the incidence of early acute rejection (AR) and complications of steroid use, in 2 cohorts of LDLT recipients.

Methods

Routine steroid maintenance (SM) after LDLT was stopped in December 2017. Our single-center retrospective cohort study spans 2 eras. Two hundred forty-two adult recipients underwent LDLT with SM (January 2000-December 2017), and 83 adult recipients (December 2017-August 2021) underwent LDLT with SA. Early AR was defined as a biopsy showing pathologic characteristics within 6 mo after LDLT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the effects of relevant recipient and donor characteristics on the incidence of early AR in our cohort.

Results

Neither the difference in early AR rate between cohorts (SA 19/83 [22.9%] versus SM 41/242 [17%]; P = 0.46) nor a subset analysis of patients with autoimmune disease (SA 5/17 [29.4%] versus SM 19/58 [22.4%]; P = 0.71) reached statistical significance. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions for early AR identified recipient age to be a statistically significant risk factor (P < 0.001). Of the patients without diabetes before LDLT, 3 of 56 (5.4%) on SA versus 26 of 200 (13%) on SM needed medications prescribed for glucose control at the time of discharge (P = 0.11). Patient survival was similar between SA and SM cohorts (SA 94% versus SM 91%, P = 0.34) 3 y after transplant.

Conclusions

LDLT recipients treated with SA do not exhibit significantly higher rates of rejection or increased mortality than patients treated with SM. Notably, this result is similar for recipients with autoimmune disease.

T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients: a meta-analysis

Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients despite several serious complications including infection, hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence, diabetes mellitus (DM), and hypertension. We attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of T-cell specific antibody induction with complete corticosteroid avoidance. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane central library. Randomized controlled trials comparing T-cell specific antibody induction with corticosteroid induction immunosuppression were included. Our primary outcome was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection. Eleven trials involving 1683 patients were included. The incidence of acute rejection was not significantly different between the antibody and steroid induction groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 = 0%). However, T-cell specific antibody induction significantly reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus infection (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33, 0.70, P = 0.0002, I2 = 3%), HCV recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80, 0.99, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%), DM (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32, 0.54, P < 0.0001, I2 = 0%) and hypertension (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55, 0.90, P = 0.005, I2 = 35%). Trial sequential analysis for acute rejection showed that the cumulative z-curve did not cross the Trial sequential boundary and the required information size was not reached. T-cell specific antibody induction compared to corticosteroid induction seems to significantly reduce opportunistic infections including cytomegalovirus infection and HCV recurrence and metabolic complications including DM and hypertension. However, given the insufficient study power, low quality of evidence, and heterogeneous immunosuppressive regimens, our results should be cautiously appreciated.

Evaluating the Incidence and Risk Factors for Acute Cellular Rejection in a Steroid Sparing Liver Transplant Center

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids has been the mainstay of immunosuppression (IMS) following liver transplant (LT). With the advent of more potent IMS, complete steroid withdrawal has become possible after LT. However, there is limited data regarding the incidence and risk factors for acute cellular rejection (ACR) in LT recipients on steroid sparing regimens.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the incidence and risk factors of ACR in LT recipients at an urban LT center utilizing a steroid-sparing IMS regimen.

METHODS

This was a single center retrospective study evaluating incidence of ACR in adults (>18 years) who received a LT between 01/01/2008 and 6/30/2019 at a steroid-sparing liver transplant center. Data between patients who had ACR and patients who did not were compared and risk factors were identified by multivariate logistic linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients were included in this analysis, of which 18.4% experienced ACR within the first year of LT. Median time to first ACR was 134 (interquartile range [IQR]: 34-246) days. Black race (odds ratio [OR]: 4.39, P < 0.001), continued need for prednisone (OR: 2.80, P = 0.015) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia (OR: 6.27, P < 0.001)) were independent risk factors for ACR. Tacrolimus use was associated with less ACR (OR: 0.33, P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Steroid sparing regimens for IMS post-LT were not associated with an increased incidence of ACR when compared to reported ACR rates in literature. Potential risk factors for ACR include Black race, the use of prednisone maintenance IMS therapy, and CMV viremia.

[Kidney failure after liver transplantation]

One third of cirrhotic patients present impaired kidney function. It has multifactorial causes and has a harmful effect on patients' morbi-mortality before and after liver transplant. Kidney function does not improve in all patients after liver transplantation and liver-transplant recipients are at high risk of developing chronic kidney disease. Causes for renal dysfunction can be divided in three groups: preoperative, peroperative and postoperative factors. To date, there is no consensus for the modality of evaluation the risk for chronic kidney disease after liver transplantation, and for its prevention. In the present review, we describe the outcome of kidney function after liver transplantation, and the prognostic factors of chronic kidney disease to determine a risk stratification for each patient. Furthermore, we discuss therapeutic options to prevent kidney dysfunction in this setting, and highlight the indications of combined liver-kidney transplantation.

Kidney Failure after Liver Transplantation

One-third of patients with cirrhosis present kidney failure (AKI and CKD). It has multifactorial causes and a harmful effect on morbidity and mortality before and after liver transplantation. Kidney function does not improve in all patients after liver transplantation, and liver transplant recipients are at a high risk of developing chronic kidney disease. The causes of renal dysfunction can be divided into three groups: pre-operative, perioperative and post-operative factors. To date, there is no consensus on the modality to evaluate the risk of chronic kidney disease after liver transplantation, or for its prevention. In this narrative review, we describe the outcome of kidney function after liver transplantation, and the prognostic factors of chronic kidney disease in order to establish a risk categorization for each patient. Furthermore, we discuss therapeutic options to prevent kidney dysfunction in this context, and highlight the indications of combined liver–kidney transplantation.

Randomized trial of steroid free immunosuppression with basiliximab induction in adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT)

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are an integral part of immunosuppression following solid organ transplantation, despite their metabolic complications. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of steroid-free immunosuppression following live donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

We randomized 104 patients stratified based on pre-transplant diabetic status to either a steroid-free arm (SF-arm) (Basiliximab + Tacrolimus and Azathioprine,n = 52) or Steroid arm (S-Arm) (Steroid + Tacrolimus + Azathioprine,n = 52). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of metabolic complications (new-onset diabetes after transplant (NODAT), new-onset systemic hypertension after transplant (NOSHT), post-transplant dyslipidemia) within 6 months after transplant. Secondary endpoints included biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) within six months, patient and graft survival at 6 months.

RESULTS

The incidence NODAT was significantly higher in S-arm at 3 months (64.5%vs. 28.1%,p-0.004) and 6 months (51.6% vs. 15.6%,p-0.006). Likewise, the incidence of NOSHT (27.8% vs. 4.8%,p-0.01) and hypertriglyceridemia (26.7% vs. 8%,p-0.03) at six months was significantly higher in S-arm. However, there were no differences in BPAR (19.2% vs. 21.2%, p-0.81), time to first rejection (58 vs. 53 days, p-0.78), patient and graft survival (610 vs. 554 days,p- 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Following LDLT, basiliximab induction with tacrolimus and azathioprine maintenance resulted in significantly lower metabolic complications compared to the triple-drug regimen of steroid, tacrolimus, and azathioprine.

A Time-Based Meta-Analysis on the Incidence of New Onset Diabetes after Liver Transplantation

NODAT (new-onset diabetes after transplantation) is an important complication after liver transplant, however, there is variation in the reported incidence of NODAT. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to estimate the incidence of NODAT in liver transplant. Electronic databases were searched for articles regarding NODAT incidence after liver transplantation. Incidence of NODAT were analyzed at six different timepoints. Summary statistics were calculated using a generalized linear mixed model in random effects. 28 articles were included and out of a pooled population of 71,257 patients, overall incidence of NODAT was found to be 15.51%, 16.09%, 18.30%, 20.86%, 18.08%, 25.05% for three-months, six-months, one-year, three-year, five-year, and ten-year timepoints respectively. After a sensitivity analysis which only included articles with clear definitions of NODAT, the incidence of NODAT was found to be higher at three-year (21.79%), five-year (25.82%), and ten-year (44.95%) timepoints. Subgroup analysis according to ethnicity found no significant differences for all timepoints. However, studies with predominantly Asian participants generally had a higher incidence of NODAT. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides a pooled estimate of the incidence of NODAT following liver transplantation. Further studies are required to provide a more comprehensive understanding on how ethnicity can affect the incidence of NODAT.

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

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

Immunosuppression in liver transplant

The increasing potency of immunosuppression (IS) agents resulted in significantly decreased rates of steroid resistant rejection and rejection related graft loss in liver transplantation (LT). Currently, more than two thirds of late mortality after LT is unrelated to graft function. However, the increased benefit of more potent IS drugs, coupled with the prolonged survival of transplant recipients led to longer patients exposure to these drugs and their unwanted adverse effects, creating a double-edged sword. In this article the authors describe the mechanism of action and the adverse effects of the most commonly used immunosuppressed drugs, and the most commonly used IS regimens for both induction and maintenance regimens. The balance between the ideal IS regimen to prevent rejection and the need to minimize the dose of IS drugs in order to prevent the adverse effects related to its use requires the knowledge of the science and the experience with the art of medicine. The different protocols aimed at protecting renal function and preventing the development of de novo cancer and metabolic syndrome are discussed here. The main causes of mortality late after liver transplant are associated with prolonged use of IS medications, and clear evidence exists about over-immunosuppression of recipients of liver transplant. The current status of strategies of IS minimization and withdrawal are reviewed in this article, with evaluation of its benefits and pitfalls.

New-onset diabetes after adult liver transplantation in the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) study

BACKGROUND

New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is a serious complication following liver transplantation (LT). The present study aimed to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for NODAT using the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) database.

METHODS

Patients with history of pediatric transplantation (age ≤18 years), re-transplantation, multi-organ transplantation, or pre-existing diabetes mellitus were excluded. A total of 1,919 non-diabetic adult patients who underwent a primary LT between May 2014 and December 2017 were included. Risk factors were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

NODAT occurred in 19.7% (n=377) of adult liver transplant recipients. Multivariate analysis showed steroid use, increased age, and high body mass index (BMI) in recipients, and implantation of a left-side liver graft was closely associated with NODAT in adult LT. In living donor liver transplant (LDLT) patients (n=1,473), open donor hepatectomy in the living donors, steroid use, small for size liver graft (graft to recipient weight ratio ≤0.8), increased age, and high BMI in the recipient were predictive factors for NODAT. The use of antimetabolite and basiliximab induction reduced the incidence of NODAT in adult LT and in adult LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

Basiliximab induction, early steroid withdrawal, and antimetabolite therapy may prevent NODAT after adult LT. High BMI or advanced age in liver recipients, open donor hepatectomy in living donors, and small size liver graft can predict the occurrence of NODAT after adult LT or LDLT.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by liver transplantation is a promising treatment for patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: A case report

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant tumor and is currently treated by surgical resection or liver transplantation; however, these treatments result in poor patient prognosis accompanied with high recurrence and low patient mortality rates. Neoadjuvant therapy with liver transplantation is a novel treatment that exhibits promising clinical application, with a reported 5-year survival rate of 82%. However, transplantation centers conducting research into this treatment are limited due to its length and complexity. In the current study, the effects of brachytherapy and chemoradiotherapy followed by orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) were investigated in a patient with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Following treatment, the liver function of the patient normalized and physical status significantly improved. Furthermore, tomographic evaluation demonstrated no sign of recurrence 8 months later following continued adjunct chemotherapy. Therefore, neoadjuvant therapy followed by OLT may be an effective novel therapeutic strategy to treat patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

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

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

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Literatura Americano e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Transplant Library until May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed; otherwise we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using 'Risk of bias' domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 completed randomised clinical trials, but only 16 studies with 1347 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Ten of the 16 trials assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). One additional study assessed complete post-operative glucocorticosteroid avoidance but could only be incorporated into qualitative analysis of the results due to limited data published in an abstract. All trials were at high risk of bias. Only eight trials reported on the type of donor used. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; very low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; low-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Duplicate publication bias weakens the validity of meta-analysis of immunosuppression after transplantation

Duplicate publication can introduce significant bias into a meta-analysis if studies are inadvertently included more than once. Many studies are published in more than one journal to maximize readership and impact of the study findings. Inclusion of multiple publications of the same study within a meta-analysis affords inappropriate weight to the duplicated data if reports of the same study are not linked together. As studies which have positive findings are more likely to be published in multiple journals this leads to a potential overestimate of the benefits of an intervention. Recent advances in immunosuppression strategies following liver transplantation have led to many studies investigating immunosuppressive regimes including immunosuppression monotherapy. In this letter we focus on a recently published meta-analysis by Lan et al investigating studies assessing immunosuppression monotherapy for liver transplantation. The authors claim to have identified fourteen separate randomised studies investigating immunosuppression monotherapy. Seven of the references appear to relate to only three studies which have been subject to duplicate publication. Several similarities can be identified in each of the duplicate publications including similar authorship, identical immunosuppression regimes, identical dates of enrolment and citation of the original publication in the subsequent manuscripts. We discuss the evidence of the duplicate publication inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Sweet syndrome in a patient with chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Sweet syndrome (SS) is a rare skin condition that is classically idiopathic in etiology, but can also be triggered by malignancy, drug reaction, or infection. Both chronic hepatitis C infection and antiviral agents for the treatment of hepatitis C have been postulated to be possible triggers of SS.

OBJECTIVE

Herein, we present a case of SS in a patient with untreated chronic hepatitis C and cirrhosis but no other significant comorbidities.

Management of the Liver Transplant Recipient: Approach to Allograft Dysfunction

Liver transplant (LT) recipients are living longer than ever today and many will experience some form of allograft dysfunction. The common causes of allograft dysfunction vary significantly depending on the timing since LT. Most allograft abnormalities are manageable with minimally invasive procedures, medications, and lifestyle modification. The most common differential diagnoses by time period after LT, and diagnostic and management considerations, are highlighted. Collaboration and comanagement of LT recipients between primary care and the transplant hepatologist is essential for optimizing recipient and allograft outcomes.

Optimization of immunosuppressive medication upon liver transplantation against HCC recurrence

The introduction of liver transplant listing criteria for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) has significantly improved oncological outcomes and survival. But despite this HCC recurrence is still problematic. There is emerging evidence that the choice of immunosuppression (IS) after transplant for HCC can influence oncological survival and HCC recurrence. The following is a short summary of what has been published on HCC recurrence with the different classes of immunosuppressive agents in present use, concluding with the possible rationalization of the use of these immunosuppressive agents in the post-transplant patient at high risk of recurrence.

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.

Steroid minimization immunosuppression protocol using basiliximab in adult living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis

AIM

Recent randomized trials have failed to prove the benefit of steroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on the use of basiliximab in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This pilot study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a steroid minimization protocol using basiliximab compared with standard immunosuppression.

METHODS

A single center, prospective cohort analysis was conducted to compare two immunosuppression regimens in adult recipients who underwent LDLT for HCV since 2004: calcineurin inhibitor/mizoribine/basiliximab (the St- group) and calcineurin inhibitor/mizoribine/steroid (the St+ group). Study end-points were rejection rates, recurrent HCV, patient survival and other adverse events up to 2 years after transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 27 consecutive patients were enrolled. Transplantation characteristics were similar between the two groups (14 St- and 13 St+) except ABO incompatible cases being more common in the St+ group. Rejection rates, recurrent HCV, patient survival, fibrosis stage and new-onset diabetes mellitus at 2 years were comparable between the two groups. ABO incompatibility did not affect short- and long-term outcomes. Nine St- and seven St+ recipients underwent interferon and ribavirin therapy for recurrent HCV, with a sustained virological response rate of 33% and 29%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A steroid minimization protocol with basiliximab in adult LDLT for HCV is safe and affords equivalent rejection rates compared with standard immunosuppression. However, no significant differences are observed with respect to recurrent HCV, patient survival and metabolic complications.

New-onset diabetes after liver transplantation and its impact on complications and patient survival

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) in liver transplant recipients and the influence of NODAT on complications and long-term patient survival.

METHODS

We examined 438 patients who underwent liver transplantation between April 2001 and December 2008 and were not diabetic before transplantation.

RESULTS

The mean (± SD) follow-up duration was 2.46 ± 1.62 years. The incidence of NODAT 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, and 60 months after transplantation was 44.24%, 25.59%, 23.08%, 25.17%, 17.86%, and 18.18%, respectively. Multifactor analysis indicated that preoperative fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and donor liver steatosis were independent risk factors for NODAT, whereas administration of an interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R) antagonist reduced the risk of NODAT. Compared with the no NODAT group (N-NODAT), the NODAT group had a higher rate of sepsis and chronic renal insufficiency. Mean survival was significantly longer in the N-NODAT than NODAT group. Cox regression analysis showed that pre- and/or postoperative FPG levels, tumor recurrence or metastasis, and renal insufficiency after liver transplantation were independent risk factors of mortality. Pulmonary infection or multisystem failure were specific causes of death in the NODAT group, whereas patients in both groups died primarily from tumor relapse or metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative FPG levels and donor liver steatosis were independent risk factors for NODAT, whereas administration of an IL-2R antagonist reduced the risk of NODAT. Patients with NODAT had reduced survival and an increased incidence of sepsis and chronic renal insufficiency. Significant causes of death in the NODAT group were pulmonary infection and multisystem failure.

Outcome of gastric emptying and gastrointestinal symptoms after liver transplantation for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis

Background

Hereditary transthyretin amyloid (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare but fatal autosomal dominant condition that is present all over the world. A liver transplantation has been shown to halt the progress of the disease in selected patients and is currently considered to be the standard treatment. Gastrointestinal manifestations are common in hereditary ATTR amyloidosis and are important for the patients’ morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of gastric emptying, gastrointestinal symptoms and nutritional status after liver transplantation for the disease.

Methods

Swedish patients with hereditary ATTR amyloidosis transplanted between 1990 and 2012 were included. A standardized method for measuring gastric emptying with a Tc^99m-labelled meal followed by scintigraphy was utilized. Validated questionnaires were used to assess gastrointestinal symptoms and the modified body mass index (mBMI), in which BMI is multiplied by s-albumin, was used to evaluate nutritional status. Non-parametrical statistical tests were used.

Results

Gastric emptying rates and nutritional statuses were evaluated approximately eight months before and two and five years after liver transplantation, whereas gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed in median nine months before and two and nine years after transplantation. No significant change was found in gastric emptying (median half-time 137 vs. 132 vs. 125 min, p = 0.52) or nutritional status (median mBMI 975 vs. 991 vs. 973, p = 0.75) after transplantation. Gastrointestinal symptom scores, however, had increased significantly over time (median score 7 vs. 10 vs. 13, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Gastric emptying and nutritional status were maintained after liver transplantation for hereditary ATTR amyloidosis, although gastrointestinal symptom scores had increased over time.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0284-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A retrospective 15-year review: survival advantage after switching to sirolimus in hepatitis C virus infected liver graft recipients

BACKGROUND

The use of sirolimus-based immune suppression in liver transplantation, particularly in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected recipients, remains contentious. There is some evidence that sirolimus retards hepatic fibrosis, is renal sparing and may be of benefit in preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. Sirolimus has not been adopted by many transplant centres because of persistent concerns regarding an increased risk of hepatic artery thrombosis, graft loss and death with de novo sirolimus.

AIM

To review the impact of switching to sirolimus monotherapy in HCV-infected liver recipients with respect to survival, graft loss and hepatic fibrosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 190 patients from a single centre undergoing first liver transplantation for HCV over 15 years. 113 patients were switched from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based therapy to low-dose sirolimus monotherapy at a median of 15 months after transplantation for HCV-related fibrosis (72%), renal impairment (14%) or high-risk HCC (5%).

RESULTS

Patients switched to sirolimus had improved survival (P < 0.001) and slower progression to cirrhosis (P = 0.001). In patients with HCC (n = 91), sirolimus duration rather than strategy was an independent predictor of survival (P = 0.001) and extended time to HCC recurrence (33 vs. 16 months). Patients switched for renal dysfunction showed improvement in serum creatinine (140-108 μmol/L, P = 0.001). Those remaining on CNI-therapy were more likely to develop post-transplant diabetes (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest selective switching to low-dose sirolimus monotherapy in HCV-positive liver recipients improves clinical outcome.

Is there such a thing as protocol immunosuppression in liver transplantation?

Protocol immunosuppression in liver transplantation is largely an outdated concept. Immunosuppression is now personalized to the individual patient on the basis of several factors including underlying etiology of original liver disease (e.g., HCV, hepatocellular carcinoma), renal function, metabolic co-morbidities and the patient's immunological state. These include omission of corticosteroids in HCV infection and those with major metabolic risk factors, the minimization of calcineurin inhibitors in the presence of renal dysfunction and the use of mTOR inhibitors in patients with malignancy. The basis for such decision-making is discussed in this editorial.

Tacrolimus-based versus cyclosporine-based immunosuppression in hepatitis C virus-infected patients after liver transplantation: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Most liver transplant recipients receive calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), especially tacrolimus and cyclosporine, as immunosuppressant agents to prevent rejection. A controversy exists as to whether the outcomes of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected liver transplant patients differ based on the CNIs used. This meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of tacrolimus-based and cyclosporine-based immunosuppression, especially cases of HCV recurrence in liver transplant patients with end-stage liver disease caused by HCV infection.

Methods

Related articles were identified from the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. Meta-analyses were performed for the results of homogeneous studies.

Results

Nine randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials were included. The total effect size of mortality (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.77–1.25, P = 0.87) and graft loss (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83–1.33, P = 0.67) showed no significant difference between the two groups irrespective of duration of immunosuppressant therapy after liver transplantation. In addition, the HCV recurrence-induced mortality (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.66–1.89, P = 0.69), graft loss (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.64–4.07, P  = 0.31) and retransplantation (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.48–4.09, P = 0.54), as well as available biopsies, confirmed that histological HCV recurrences (RR =  0.92, 95% CI: 0.71–1.19, P = 0.51) were similar.

Conclusion

These results suggested no difference in posttransplant HCV recurrence-induced mortality, graft loss and retransplantation, as well as histological HCV recurrence in patients treated with tacrolimus-based and cyclosporine-based immunosuppresion.

Immunosuppression: trends and tolerance?

Advances in pharmacologic immunosuppression are responsible for the excellent outcomes experienced by recipients of liver transplants. However, long-term follow-up of these patients reveals an increasing burden of morbidity and mortality that is attributable to these drugs. The authors summarize the agents used in contemporary liver transplantation immunosuppression protocols and discuss the emerging trend within the community to minimize or eliminate these agents from use. The authors present recently published data that may provide the foundation for immunosuppression minimization or tolerance induction in the future and review studies that have focused on the utility of biomarkers in guiding immunosuppression management.

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).

Liver transplantation: immunosuppression and oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Long-term survival of liver transplant recipients is threatened by increased rates of de-novo malignancy and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), both events tightly related to immunosuppression.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is accumulating evidence linking increased exposure to immunosuppressants and carcinogenesis, particularly concerning calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), azathioprine and antilymphocyte agents. A recent study including 219 HCC transplanted patients showed that HCC recurrence rates were halved if a minimization of CNIs was applied within the first month after liver transplant. With mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors as approved immunosuppressants for liver transplant patients, pooled data from several retrospective studies have suggested their possible benefit for reducing HCC recurrence.

SUMMARY

Randomized controlled trials with sufficiently long follow-up are needed to evaluate the influence of different immunosuppression protocols in preventing malignancy after LT. Currently, early minimization of CNIs with or without mTOR inhibitors or mycophenolate seems a rational strategy for patients with risk factors for de-novo malignancy or recurrence of HCC after liver transplant. A deeper understanding of the immunological pathways of rejection and cancer would allow for designing more specific and safer drugs, and thus to prevent cancer after liver transplant.

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.

Liver transplantation for malignancy: Current treatment strategies and future perspectives

In 1967, Starzl et al performed the first successful liver transplantation for a patient diagnosed with hepatoblastoma. In the following, liver transplantation was considered ideal for complete tumor resection and potential cure from primary hepatic malignancies. Several reports of liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancer however showed disappointing results and the strategy was soon dismissed. In 1996, Mazzaferro et al introduced the Milan criteria, offering liver transplantation to patients diagnosed with limited hepatocellular carcinoma. Since then, liver transplantation for malignant disease is an ongoing subject of preclinical and clinical research. In this context, several aspects must be considered: (1) Given the shortage of deceased-donor organs, long-term overall and disease free survival should be comparable with results obtained in patients transplanted for non-malignant disease; (2) In this regard, living-donor liver transplantation may in selected patients help to solve the ethical dilemma of optimal individual patient treatment vs organ allocation justice; and (3) Ongoing research focusing on perioperative therapy and anti-proliferative immunosuppressive regimens may further reduce tumor recurrence in patients transplanted for malignant disease and thus improve overall survival. The present review gives an overview of current indications and future perspectives of liver transplantation for malignant disease.

Current strategies for immunosuppression following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

New strategies for immunosuppression (IS) after liver transplantation (LTx) are in part responsible for the increased patient and graft survival seen over time. With a few basic exceptions-notably the continued use of steroids and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs)-IS drugs and regimens being used today are different from those used 30 years ago. While graft loss due to acute or chronic rejection has become rare, the side effect burden of IS drugs exerts a significant toll on patients.

CONCEPTS/TRENDS

CNIs continue to form the backbone of IS regimens, although their use is hampered by nephrotoxicity and other adverse effects. Consequently, a variety of CNI reduction or withdrawal strategies have formed the basis of clinical trials or entered into clinical practice. These trials have included the use of everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, and anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies. Basiliximab, as well as other lymphocyte nondepleting and depleting agents, have shown benefit in induction regimens.

SUMMARY

Along with steroid reduction or elimination, current strategies for IS after LTx continue to explore novel combinations of agents, with an aim toward striking a balance between diminution of rejection and the need for avoiding adverse effects of the IS drugs. Long-term maintenance strategies are also discussed in this review, as is development of tolerance and antibody-mediated rejection.

Immunosuppression minimization vs. complete drug withdrawal in liver transplantation

Despite the increase in long-term survival, liver transplant recipients still exhibit higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. This is in part attributed to the lifelong administration of immunosuppression and its associated side effects. Several studies reported in the last decades have evaluated the impact of immunosuppression minimization in liver transplant recipients, but results have been inconsistent due to the heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient sample sizes. On the other hand, complete immunosuppression withdrawal has proven to be feasible in approximately 20% of carefully selected liver transplant recipients, especially in older patients and those with longer duration after transplantation. The long-term risks and clinical benefits of this strategy, however, also need to be clarified. As a consequence, and despite the general perception that a large proportion of liver recipients are over-immunosuppressed, it is currently not possible to derive evidence-based guidelines on how to manage long-term immunosuppression to improve clinical outcomes. Large clinical trials of drug minimization and/or withdrawal focused on clinically-relevant long-term outcomes are required. Development of personalized medicine tools and a deeper understanding of the pathogenesis of idiopathic inflammatory graft lesions will be pre-requisites to achieve these goals.

Comparison of steroid-free immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression for liver transplant patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Immunosuppression therapy following liver transplantation often includes steroids. However, extended corticosteroid therapy is associated with numerous complications. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of using basiliximab in place of a corticosteroid for immunosuppression following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Chinese patients. The records of 178 patients with HCC who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation from January 2003 to December 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received immunosuppression therapy that contained either basiliximab (n = 78) or steroids (n = 100) in addition to tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Assessments included complications related to liver transplantation, occurrence of steroid side effects, recurrence of HCC, and patient and graft survival. A smaller proportion of patients receiving basiliximab compared with steroids experienced de novo diabetes (38.7% vs. 91.0%, respectively) or long-term de novo diabetes mellitus (7.7% vs. 38.0%, respectively) (both, P<0.0001). The median overall and disease free survival was similar between basiliximab (50.8 months and 19.6 months, respectively) and steroid treated patients (64.2 months and 23.8 months, respectively). The 5-year overall survival and disease free survival rates was also similar between the basiliximab (42.5% and 38.9%, respectively) and steroid (50.5% and 39.2%) groups (all, P>0.730). However, in patients who met the Milan criteria basiliximab was associated with greater 5-year overall survival rate as compared with steroid therapy (88.9% vs. 57.4%, respectively, P = 0.022). These findings provide further evidence of the negative impact of steroids as a part of immunosuppression therapy following liver transplantation for HCC.

Randomized, multicenter trial comparing tacrolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil to tacrolimus plus steroids in hepatitis C virus-positive recipients of living donor liver transplantation

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial was to evaluate the effects of a steroid-avoiding immunosuppression protocol on hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive recipients of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Seventy-five HCV-positive LDLT recipients were included in this study, and they were randomized to receive tacrolimus (TAC) plus a corticosteroid (ST; n = 35) or TAC plus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; n = 40). Biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) was treated with steroid pulse therapy in both groups. Protocol biopsy was performed 3, 6, and 12 months after LDLT and annually thereafter. Histological recurrence of HCV (fibrosis stage ≥ F1 according to the METAVIR score), BPAR resistant to 2 sets of steroid pulse therapy, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence, retransplantation, and patient death were defined as events, and the primary endpoint was event-free survival. The median follow-up was 55 months. The event-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 38.2%, 11.8%, and 5.9%, respectively, for the ST group and 25.0%, 17.5%, and 14.6%, respectively, for the MMF group (P = 0.45). The overall 5-year patient survival rates were similar for the ST group (82.7%) and the MMF group (81.0%, P = 0.28). Steroid-resistant BPAR occurred in only 1 patient from the MMF group. HCC recurrence occurred for 1 patient from the ST group and 2 patients from the MMF group. HCV recurrence rates with a fibrosis stage ≥ F1 1 and 3 years after LDLT were 59.4% and 85.9%, respectively, for the ST group and 74.2% and 81.9%, respectively, for the MMF group (P = 0.57). In conclusion, our steroid-avoidance regimen had no apparent impact on LDLT outcomes for HCV-positive recipients.

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.

Management of recurrent hepatitis C in orthotopic liver transplant recipients

End-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma from chronic hepatitis C are the most common indications for orthotopic liver transplantation and the incidence of both are projected to increase over the next decade. Recurrent hepatitis C virus infection of the allograft is associated with an accelerated progression to cirrhosis, graft loss, and death. This article presents an overview of the natural history of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplant recipients and guidance on optimal management strategies.

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.

Irreversible liver failure: treatment by transplantation: part 3 of a series on liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the only established, causally directed treatment for irreversible chronic or acute liver failure.

METHODS

This review is based on papers retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed database, the index of randomized controlled trials of the European Society of Organ Transplantation, and the Cochrane database, along with an analysis of data from the authors' own center.

RESULTS

1199 liver transplantations were performed in Germany in 2011. The most common indications were alcoholic cirrhosis (28%), cirrhosis of other causes (24%), and intrahepatic tumors (20%). Among recipients, the sex ratio was nearly 1:1 and the median age was just under 50. Across Europe, the 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates after liver transplantation were 82%, 71% and 61%. In our own center, the Charité in Berlin, the corresponding rates were 90.4%, 79.6% and 70.3%, based on an experience of 100 to 120 cases per year. The current rate of functioning transplants five years after liver transplantation is 52.6% in Germany and 66.2% internationally. Standard immunosuppression consists of a calcineurin inhibitor, tacrolimus or cyclosporine A, and steroids. Early complications include primary functional failure of the transplant, hemorrhage, thrombosis, acute rejection, and biliary complications. Over the long term, complications that can impair the outcome include chronic rejection, biliary strictures, cardiovascular and metabolic adverse effects, nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and opportunistic infections and malignancies.

CONCLUSION

Liver transplantation is a successful and well-established form of treatment that is nonetheless endangered by a shortage of donor organs and other structural and organizational difficulties.

Immunomodulating options for liver transplant patients

Much has changed since the early years of liver transplantation. Improvements in post-transplant survival are largely due to more selective and less toxic immunosuppression regimens and advances in operative and perioperative care. This has allowed liver transplantation to become an extremely successful treatment option for patients with endstage liver disease. Beginning with cyclosporine, a cyclic endecapeptide of fungal origin and the first of the calcineurin inhibitors to find widespread use, immunosuppressive regimens have evolved to include additional calcineurin inhibitors, steroids, mTOR inhibitors, antimetabolites and antibodies, mostly targeting T-cell activation. This review will present currently available immunosuppressive agents used in the perioperative period of liver transplantation, as well as maintenance treatments, tailoring therapeutic strategies for specific populations, and advances in immune monitoring and tolerance.

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.