ATG-Fresenius treatment and low-dose tacrolimus: results of a randomized controlled trial in liver transplantation

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Immunotolerance in liver transplantation: a primer for the clinician

The use of immunosuppressive medications for solid organ transplantation is associated with cardiovascular, metabolic, and oncologic complications. On the other hand, the development of graft rejection is associated with increased mortality and graft dysfunction. Liver transplant recipients can withdraw from immunosuppression without developing graft injury while preserving an adequate antimicrobial response - a characteristic known as immunotolerance. Immunotolerance can be spontaneously or pharmacologically achieved. Contrary to the classic dogma, clinical studies have elucidated low rates of true spontaneous immunotolerance (no serologic or histological markers of immune injury) among liver transplant recipients. However, clinical, serologic, and tissue biomarkers can aid in selecting patients in whom immunosuppression can be safely withdrawn. For those who failed an immunosuppression withdrawal trial or are at high risk of rejection, pharmacological interventions for immunotolerance induction are under development. In this review, we provide an overview of the mechanisms of immunotolerance, the clinical studies investigating predictors and biomarkers of spontaneous immunotolerance, as well as the potential pharmacological interventions for inducing it.

The Role of Immunosuppression for Recurrent Cholangiocellular Carcinoma after Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), or biliary tract cancer (BTC), remains controversial regarding high recurrence rates and poor prognosis. Oncological follow-up may benefit from tumor-inhibiting properties of mTOR inhibitors (mTORI), shown with improved survival for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after LT. The aim of this study was to investigate the recurrence and survival in relation to tumor type and type of immunosuppression (IS). LT patients with CCA or mixed HCC/CCA (mHCC/CCA) (n = 67) were retrospectively analyzed. Endpoints were the time from LT to recurrence (n = 44) and survival after recurrence. Statistically significant impairment in survival for recurrent CCA (rCCA) was shown in patients not eligible for surgical resection (HR 2.46 (CI: 1.2−5.1; p = 0.02). Histological proven grading >1 and N1 status at initial transplantation were associated with impaired survival (HR 0.13 (CI: 0.03−0.58); p < 0.01 and HR 3.4 (CI: 1.0−11.65); p = 0.05). Reduced IS after tumor recurrence improved survival (HR 4.2/CI: 1.3−13.6; p = 0.02). MTORI initiation before recurrence or after had no significant impact on survival. Our data thereby indicate, similar to findings in recurrent HCC after LT, that patients with rCCA after LT benefit from a reduction in IS upon recurrence.

Outcomes of Kidney Allograft and Recipient Survival After Liver Transplantation by Induction Type in the United States

There are several choices for induction immunosuppression in kidney-after-liver transplantation. We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. We assessed all kidney-after-liver transplant recipients in the United States between 1/1/2000 and 7/31/2017 to study kidney graft and patient outcomes by induction type. We only included patients discharged on tacrolimus and mycophenolate with or without steroids and had a negative crossmatch before kidney engraftment. We grouped recipients by kidney induction type into the following 3 groups: depletional (n = 550), nondepletional (n = 434), and no antibody induction (n = 144). We studied patient and kidney allograft survival using Cox proportional hazard regression, with transplant center included as a random effect. Models were adjusted for liver induction regimen, recipient and donor age, sex, human leukocyte antigen mismatches, payor type, living donor kidney transplantation, dialysis status, time from liver engraftment, hepatitis C virus status, and the presence of diabetes mellitus at time of kidney transplantation and transplantation year. The 6-month and 1-year rejection rates did not differ between groups. Compared with no induction, neither depletional nor nondepletional induction was associated with an improved recipient or graft survival in the multivariable models. Depletional induction at the time of liver transplantation was associated with worse patient survival after kidney transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.67; P = 0.02). Living donor kidney transplantation was associated with a 48.1% improved graft survival (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82; P = 0.00). In conclusion, in the settings of a negative cross-match and maintenance with tacrolimus and mycophenolate, induction use was not associated with a patient or graft survival benefit in kidney-after-liver transplantations.

Towards tolerance in liver transplantation

Life-long immunosuppression has always been considered the key in managing liver graft protection from recipient rejection. However, it is associated with severe adverse effects that lead to increased morbidity and mortality, including infections, cardiovascular diseases, kidney failure, metabolic disorders and de novo malignancies. This explains the great interest that has developed in the concept of tolerance in recent years. The liver, thanks to its marked tolerogenicity, is to be considered a privileged organ: up to 60% of selected patients undergoing liver transplantation could safely withdraw immunosuppression.

Early tacrolimus exposure does not impact long-term outcomes after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus trough levels (TTL) during the first weeks after liver transplantation (LT) have been related with long-term renal function and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence. Nevertheless, the significance of trough levels of tacrolimus during the early post-transplant period for the long-term outcome is under debate

AIM

To evaluate the effect of TTL during the first month on the long-term outcomes after LT.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-five LT recipients treated de novo with once-daily tacrolimus were retrospectively studied. Patients with repeated LT or combined transplantation were excluded as well as those who presented renal dysfunction prior to transplantation and/or those who needed induction therapy. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to their mean TTL within the first month after transplantation: ≤ 10 (n = 98) and > 10 ng/mL (n = 57). Multivariate analyses were performed to assess risk factors for patient mortality.

RESULTS

Mean levels within the first month post-transplant were 7.4 ± 1.7 and 12.6 ± 2.2 ng/mL in the ≤ 10 and > 10 groups, respectively. Donor age was higher in the high TTL group 62.9 ± 16.8 years vs 45.7 ± 17.5 years (P = 0.002) whilst mycophenolate-mofetil was more frequently used in the low TTL group 32.7% vs 15.8% (P = 0.02). Recipient features were generally similar across groups. After a median follow-up of 52.8 mo (range 2.8-81.1), no significant differences were observed in: Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = 0.69), hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence (P = 0.44), de novo tumors (P = 0.77), new-onset diabetes (P = 0.13), or biopsy-proven acute rejection rate (12.2% and 8.8%, respectively; P = 0.50). Eighteen patients died during the follow-up and were evenly distributed across groups (P = 0.83). Five-year patient survival was 90.5% and 84.9%, respectively (P = 0.44), while 5-year graft survival was 88.2% and 80.8%, respectively (P = 0.42). Early TTL was not an independent factor for patient mortality in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

Differences in tacrolimus levels restricted to the first month after transplant did not result in significant differences in long-term outcomes of LT recipients.

Strategies for Liver Transplantation Tolerance

Liver transplant (LT) recipients require life-long immunosuppression (IS) therapy to preserve allograft function. The risks of chronic IS include an increased frequency of malignancy, infection, renal impairment, and other systemic toxicities. Despite advances in IS, long-term LT outcomes have not been improved over the past three decades. Standard-of-care (SoC) therapy can, in rare cases, lead to development of operational tolerance that permits safe withdrawal of maintenance IS. However, successful IS withdrawal cannot be reliably predicted and, in current prospective studies, is attempted several years after the transplant procedure, after considerable exposure to the cumulative burden of maintenance therapy. A recent pilot clinical trial in liver tolerance induction demonstrated that peri-transplant immunomodulation, using a regulatory T-cell (Treg) approach, can reduce donor-specific alloreactivity and allow early IS withdrawal. Herein we review protocols for active tolerance induction in liver transplantation, with a focus on identifying tolerogenic cell populations, as well as barriers to tolerance. In addition, we propose the use of novel IS agents to promote immunomodulatory mechanisms favoring tolerance. With numerous IS withdrawal trials underway, improved monitoring and use of novel immunomodulatory strategies will help provide the necessary knowledge to establish an active liver tolerance induction protocol for widespread use.

Understanding, predicting and achieving liver transplant tolerance: from bench to bedside

In the past 40 years, liver transplantation has evolved from a high-risk procedure to one that offers high success rates for reversal of liver dysfunction and excellent patient and graft survival. The liver is the most tolerogenic of transplanted organs; indeed, immunosuppressive therapy can be completely withdrawn without rejection of the graft in carefully selected, stable long-term liver recipients. However, in other recipients, chronic allograft injury, late graft failure and the adverse effects of anti-rejection therapy remain important obstacles to improved success. The liver has a unique composition of parenchymal and immune cells that regulate innate and adaptive immunity and that can promote antigen-specific tolerance. Although the mechanisms underlying liver transplant tolerance are not well understood, important insights have been gained into how the local microenvironment, hepatic immune cells and specific molecular pathways can promote donor-specific tolerance. These insights provide a basis for the identification of potential clinical biomarkers that might correlate with tolerance or rejection and for the development of novel therapeutic targets. Innovative approaches aimed at promoting immunosuppressive drug minimization or withdrawal include the adoptive transfer of donor-derived or recipient-derived regulatory immune cells to promote liver transplant tolerance. In this Review, we summarize and discuss these developments and their implications for liver transplantation.

Induction Phase of Spontaneous Liver Transplant Tolerance

The liver has long been known to possess tolerogenic properties. Early experiments in liver transplantation demonstrated that in animal models, hepatic allografts could be accepted across MHC-mismatch without the use of immunosuppression, and that transplantation of livers from the same donor was capable of inducing tolerance to other solid organs that would normally otherwise be rejected. Although this phenomenon is less pronounced in human liver transplantation, lower levels of immunosuppression are nevertheless required for graft acceptance than for other solid organs, and in a minority of individuals immunosuppression can be discontinued in the longer term. The mechanisms underlying this unique hepatic property have not yet been fully delineated, however it is clear that immunological events in the early period post-liver transplant are key to generation of hepatic allograft tolerance. Both the hepatic parenchyma and the large number of donor passenger leukocytes contained within the liver allograft have been demonstrated to contribute to the generation of donor-specific tolerance in the early post-transplant phase. In particular, the unique nature of hepatic-leukocyte interactions appears to play a crucial role in the ability of the liver to silence the recipient alloimmune response. In this review, we will summarize the evidence regarding the potential mechanisms that mediate the critical early phase in the generation of hepatic allograft tolerance.

Clinical parameters and biomarkers predicting spontaneous operational tolerance after liver transplantation: a scoping review protocol

Objective: This scoping review aims at systematically mapping reported prognostic factors for spontaneous immunosuppression (IS) free allograft tolerance (operational tolerance, OT) in non-viral hepatitis and non-autoimmune disease liver transplant (LT) recipients who are undergoing immunosuppression withdrawal (ISW). The results may inform the subsequent conduct of a systematic review with a more specific review question.

Background: LT is currently the most effective treatment for end-stage liver diseases. Whereas the short-term outcomes after LT have dramatically improved over the last decades, the long-term outcomes remain unsatisfactory, mainly because of side effects of lifelong IS, such as infections, cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, and nephrotoxicity. ISW studies have shown that OT can be achieved by a subset of LT recipients and recent research has identified biomarkers of OT in these patients. However, an evidence-based selection algorithm for patients that can predictably benefit from ISW is not available to date. The planned review will, therefore, map existing knowledge on prognostic clinical parameters and biomarkers for OT.

Inclusion criteria: We will consider studies that record any clinical parameter or biomarker before the initiation of ISW in paediatric or adult non-viral hepatitis and non-autoimmune disease LT recipients and analyse their possible association with ISW outcomes (OT or non-tolerance). Studies addressing the effectiveness of OT-inducing treatments will be excluded.

Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library will be searched for relevant articles or conference abstracts. Full-texts of selected abstracts will be independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. References and citing articles of included records will be screened for additional relevant records. Clinical trial registries will be searched for ongoing studies, and their investigators contacted for the sharing of unpublished data. Data from included records will be independently extracted by two reviewers using a prespecified data extraction table and presented in both tabular and narrative form.

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.

Clinical parameters and biomarkers predicting spontaneous operational tolerance after liver transplantation: a scoping review protocol

Objective: This scoping review aims at systematically mapping reported prognostic factors for spontaneous immunosuppression (IS) free allograft tolerance (operational tolerance, OT) in non-viral hepatitis and non-autoimmune disease liver transplant (LT) recipients who are undergoing immunosuppression withdrawal (ISW). The results may inform the subsequent conduct of a systematic review with a more specific review question. Background: LT is currently the most effective treatment for end-stage liver diseases. Whereas the short-term outcomes after LT have dramatically improved over the last decades, the long-term outcomes remain unsatisfactory, mainly because of side effects of lifelong IS, such as infections, cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, and nephrotoxicity. ISW studies have shown that OT can be achieved by a subset of LT recipients and recent research has identified biomarkers of OT in these patients. However, an evidence-based selection algorithm for patients that can predictably benefit from ISW is not available to date. The planned review will, therefore, map existing knowledge on prognostic clinical parameters and biomarkers for OT. Inclusion criteria: We will consider studies that record any clinical parameter or biomarker before the initiation of ISW in paediatric or adult non-viral hepatitis and non-autoimmune disease LT recipients and analyse their possible association with ISW outcomes (OT or non-tolerance). Studies addressing the effectiveness of OT-inducing treatments will be excluded. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library will be searched for relevant articles or conference abstracts. Full-texts of selected abstracts will be independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. References and citing articles of included records will be screened for additional relevant records. Clinical trial registries will be searched for ongoing studies, and their investigators contacted for the sharing of unpublished data. Data from included records will be independently extracted by two reviewers using a prespecified data extraction table and presented in both tabular and narrative form.

Early post-operative intravenous tacrolimus in pediatric liver transplant recipients is not superior to oral tacrolimus

We aimed to compare the early results of i.v. with p.o. TAC as a primary immunosuppressant in pediatric patients undergoing LT. This retrospective study enrolled 75 children who underwent LT and received TAC-steroid regimens as a primary immunosuppressant between September 2011 and October 2015 at our institution. Thirty-five recipients received TAC i.v. and 40 received TAC p.o. Early results were evaluated and compared, including ACR, EBV, or CMV infection; renal adverse effects; and hospital stay. Comparisons of 90-day post-transplant results showed that the rates of overall viral (74% vs 40% P < 0.002), EBV (46% vs 17.5% P < 0.008), and CMV (51% vs 30% P = 0.05) infections were significantly higher in the i.v. than in the p.o. group. Neither regimen has any adverse effects on renal function. There were no between-group differences in ACR incidence and severity, serum creatinine concentration, and hospital stay. Patient and graft survival rates at 3 months and 1 year did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared with p.o. treatment, i.v. administration of high TAC concentration did not have beneficial post-transplant effects on ACR incidence and severity, while increasing the incidence of viral infections in pediatric LT.

Update on Immunosuppression in Liver Transplantation

The standard therapy for decompensated end-stage chronic liver disease of any etiology and acute fulminant hepatic failure is liver transplantation (LT). Advances in immunosuppressive therapy decreased the rates of acute and chronic rejections. Thus, graft and patient survivals have significantly improved. However, long-term adverse effects of prolonged use of immunosuppressive agents such as malignancies, opportunistic infections, metabolic disorders, and other organ toxicities have now become a major concern. Consequently, alternative approaches are needed to deescalate the customary drugs and their side effects. Therapy must be individualized and additional preventive measures should be taken by patients with particular risk factors or predisposed to certain adverse effects. Current opinion favors a combination of agents with different mechanism of actions and toxicity profiles. Corticosteroids are employed in immediate and early postoperative period. Although they have a pronounced side effect profile, calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are still the backbone of early and late phase immunosuppressive regimens because of their proved efficacy. Antimetabolites are frequent choices for steroid and/or CNI-sparing strategies. Studies also have established a role for mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in specific groups of recipients. Biologic agents are a hot topic of interest and made their way into current strategies for induction. Agents extrapolated from other transplantation or immunologic experience are being evaluated.

Lower tacrolimus trough levels in the late period after living donor liver transplantation contribute to improvements in long-term clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have emphasized the need to reduce tacrolimus (TAC) trough levels in the early post-liver transplantation (LT) period. However, whether late-period TAC trough levels influence the long-term outcomes of liver recipients is not clear.

METHODS

We enrolled 155 adult liver recipients survived more than 3 years after living donor liver transplantation because of non-malignant liver diseases. The maintenance immunosuppressive regimens were TAC monotherapy and combined therapy with mycophenolate mofetil. Patients were divided into three groups according to their late-period TAC trough levels: < 3 ng/mL group, 3-5 ng/mL group, and  >5 ng/mL group. The complications and adverse effects of TAC were analyzed.

RESULTS

Each group showed similar rejection, graft loss and mortality. Patients achieved the < 5 ng/mL state in less than 4 years had fewer new-onset diabetes, hyperlipidemia, de novo malignancies, and hepatitis B virus recurrence; the complications of renal dysfunction and hypertension rates were the same among these 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, our findings indicated that lower TAC trough levels in the late period of liver transplantation are safe, improve the long-term outcomes.

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.

Tolerance after liver transplantation: Where are we?

Impeccable management of immunosuppression is required to ensure the best longterm outcomes for liver transplant recipients. This is particularly challenging for children who arguably need 8 decades of graft and patient survival. Too little risks chronic, often subclinical allo-immune injury while too much risks insidious and cumulative toxicities. Historically, immunosuppression minimization or withdrawal has been a strategy to optimize the longevity of liver transplant recipients. The literature is sprinkled with single-center reports of operationally tolerant patients - those with apparently normal liver function and liver tests. However, without biopsy evidence of immunological quiescence, confidence in the phenotypic assignment of tolerance is shaky. More recently, multicenter trials of immunosuppression withdrawal for highly selected, stable, longterm adult and pediatric liver recipients have shown tolerance rates, based on both biochemical and histological assessment, of 40% and 60%, respectively. Extended biochemical and histologic follow-up of children over 8 years, equivalent to 7+ years off of drug, suggests that operational tolerance is robust. Therefore, clearly, immunosuppression can be completely and safety withdrawn from highly-selected subsets of adults and children. However, these trials have also confirmed that clinically ideal recipients - those eligible for immunosuppression withdrawal trial - can harbor significant and worrisome inflammation and/or fibrosis. Although the etiology and prognosis of these findings remain unknown, it is reasonable to surmise that they may reflect an anti-donor immune response that is insufficiently controlled. To achieve the outcomes that we are seeking and that our patients are demanding, we desperately need noninvasive but accurate biomarkers that identify whether immunosuppression is neither too much nor too little but "just right." Until these are available, liver histology remains the gold standard to assess allograft health and guide immunosuppression management. Liver Transplantation 23 1601-1614 2017 AASLD.

Once-daily tacrolimus in liver transplantation: a 'me-too drug', or a therapeutic advantage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide latest information on differences between standard tacrolimus (TAC BID) and slow-released formulation of tacrolimus (Advagraf) in liver transplantation (LTx), and to discuss the latter's therapeutic value as a distinct entity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two articles on de-novo studies, several on conversion and one on survival analysis from the European Liver Transplant Registry published recently showed that low-dose Advagraf immediately after transplantation provided same protection to the kidney as standard dose delayed until day 5, and was associated with lower rejection rate; to maintain the same trough level after late conversion to Advagraf, an approximately 1.25-fold higher dose was needed on average; if studied by questionnaire, conversion improved medication adherence; and registry data provided evidence of long-term survival benefit of Advagraf over TAC BID (7 and 8% graft and patient survival rates over a 3-year period; P < 0.002 and P < 0.003, respectively).

SUMMARY

Pharmacokinetic differences between TAC BID and Advagraf translate into less interpatient and intrapatient variability and improve adherence. If survival benefit of Advagraf administration de novo after LTx as demonstrated by the European Liver Transplant Registry analysis is confirmed in an independent cohort, Advagraf will leave the area of the 'me-too' drugs to become the immunosuppressant of choice.

Tolerance in clinical liver transplantation

While advances in immunosuppressive therapy have lowered the rate of acute rejection following liver transplantation, the consequence has been an increase in morbidity and mortality related to the lifelong need for maintenance immunosuppression. These complications include an increased risk of malignancy, infection, metabolic disorders, and chronic kidney disease, as well as high health care costs associated with these therapies and the required drug monitoring. Given these issues, most clinicians attempt trial and error dose minimization with variable success rates, and there has been significant interest in full drug withdrawal in select patients through research protocols. These strategies would be more successful if immunomodulatory therapies early after transplantation could be developed and if immune activation biomarkers guiding drug tapering were available to personalize these approaches. This review will review the mechanisms of liver transplant tolerance and potential strategies to achieve immunosuppression withdrawal.

Modification of immunosuppressive therapy as risk factor for complications after liver transplantation

Management of complications post-liver transplantation (LT) includes immunosuppressive manipulations with the aim to reduce the overall burden of immunologic suppression and compensate for renal, cardiovascular, metabolic toxicities, and for the increased oncologic risk. Two approaches can be implemented to reduce immunosuppression-related adverse events: upfront schedules tailored to the pretransplant individual patient's risk profile versus downstream modifications in the event of immunosuppression-related complications. Upfront strategies are supported by evidence originating from prospective randomized trials and consist of triple/quadruple schedules whereby calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-exposure is reduced with combination of anti-CD25 monoclonal antibodies, antimetabolites and corticosteroids. Quadruple regimens allow for staggering of CNI introduction and higher renal function in the early term, but their superiority in the long term has not yet been established. A more recent upfront schedule contemplates early (4 weeks) introduction of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) everolimus and allows for reduction of CNI up to 4 years posttransplantation. Incorporation of mTORi has the potential to prolong time to recurrence for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, as suggested by the available evidence, downstream immunosuppressive manipulations are more frequently adopted in clinical practice. These encompass CNI replacement and immunosuppression withdrawal. Switching CNI to mTORi monotherapy is the option most commonly adopted to relieve renal function and compensate for posttransplant malignancies. Its impact is dependent on interval from transplantation and underlying severity of renal impairment. Introduction of mTORi is associated with longer overall survival for patients with extrahepatic posttransplant malignancies, but results are awaited for recurrences of hepatocellular carcinoma. Immunosuppression withdrawal seems feasible (70%) in very long term survivors (>10 years), but is not associated with reversal of immunosuppression-related complications. Awaiting novel immunosuppressive drug categories, integration of upfront strategies with the aim to reduce CNI-exposure and a low threshold for adjustment in the posttransplant course are both advisable to improve long-term outcomes of LT.

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.

Can immunosuppression be stopped after liver transplantation?

Liver transplantation has improved dramatically over the past three decades, mainly as a result of advances in surgical techniques and management of post-transplant complications. The focus has now turned towards rescuing additional organs in the face of scarce organ supply, or prevention of long-term toxicity associated with immunosuppression. The liver appears to be privileged in terms of immune tolerance, with a low incidence of antibody-mediated rejection, which is in sharp contrast to other solid organ transplants, such as kidney, lung, and heart transplants. However, tolerogenic processes remain poorly understood, and strategies for complete drug withdrawal should be selected carefully to avoid graft rejection. In this Review, we summarise the current understanding of liver-specific immune responses and provide an outlook on future approaches.

Successful expansion of functional and stable regulatory T cells for immunotherapy in liver transplantation

Strategies to prevent organ transplant rejection whilst minimizing long-term immunosuppression are currently under intense investigation with regulatory T cells (Tregs) nearing clinical application. The clinical trial, ThRIL, recently commenced at King's College London, proposes to use Treg cell therapy to induce tolerance in liver transplant recipients, the success of which has the potential to revolutionize the management of these patients and enable a future of drug-free transplants. This is the first report of the manufacture of clinical grade Tregs from prospective liver transplant recipients via a CliniMACS-based GMP isolation technique and expanded using anti-CD3/CD28 beads, IL-2 and rapamycin. We report the enrichment of a pure, stable population of Tregs (>95% CD4(+)CD25(+)FOXP3(+)), reaching adequate numbers for their clinical application. Our protocol proved successful in, influencing the expansion of superior functional Tregs, as compared to freshly isolated cells, whilst also preventing their conversion to Th17 cells under pro-inflammatory conditions. We conclude with the manufacture of the final Treg product in the clinical research facility (CRF), a prerequisite for the clinical application of these cells. The data presented in this manuscript together with the much-anticipated clinical results from ThRIL, will undoubtedly inform the improved management of the liver transplant recipient.

Study of Immune Tolerance Cases in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Complete immune tolerance is the chief goal in organ transplantation. This study aimed to evaluate patients who successfully withdrew from immunosuppressive (IS) agents after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all adult LDLT from July 1999 to March 2012 was conducted. In patients who acquired immune tolerance after LDLT, their background and the course of surgical procedures were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of a total of 101 adult LDLT patients, 8 patients were completely free of IS agents. Six of these patients (75%) were female, and the median age at the time of transplantation was 56 years (range, 31-66 years). The primary disease causing liver failure was type C liver cirrhosis (50%), fulminant hepatitis (25%), type B liver cirrhosis (12%), and alcoholic liver cirrhosis (12%). The median Child-Pugh score and MELD score were 13 points (range, 8-15 points) and 19 points (range, 10-18 points), respectively. The living related donor was the recipient's child (75%), sibling (12%), or parent (12%). ABO compatibility was identical in 62%, compatible in 25%, and incompatible in 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we evaluated the adult patients who successfully withdrew from IS agents after LDLT. In most cases, it took more than 5 years to reduce IS agents. Because monitoring of the serum transaminase level is not adequate to detect chronic liver fibrosis in immune tolerance cases, further study is required to find appropriate protocols for reducing IS agent use after LDLT.

Spontaneous and induced tolerance for liver transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transformative medical and surgical advances have remarkably improved short-term survival after liver transplantation. There is, however, pervasive concern that the cumulative toxicities of modern immunosuppression regimens severely compromise both quality and quantity of life for liver transplant recipients. The inherently tolerogenic nature of the liver offers the tantalizing opportunity to change the current paradigm of nonspecific and lifelong immunosuppression. Safe minimization or discontinuation of immunosuppression without damage to the liver allograft is an attractive strategy to improve long-term survival after liver transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent prospective, multicenter clinical trials have demonstrated that immunosuppression can be safely withdrawn from selected liver transplant recipients with preservation of allograft histology. These successes have spurred multiple avenues of investigation to identify peripheral blood and/or tissue biomarkers and delineate mechanisms of tolerance. Concomitant advances in the ability to expand regulatory T cells in the laboratory have spawned clinical trials to facilitate immunosuppression minimization and/or discontinuation.

SUMMARY

This review will delineate the unique liver immunobiology that has driven the recent clinical trials to unmask spontaneous tolerance or induce tolerance for liver transplant recipients. The emerging results of these trials over the next 5 years hold promise to reduce the burden of lifelong immunosuppression and thereby optimize the long-term health of liver transplant recipients.

Selection and use of immunosuppressive therapies after liver transplantation: current German practice

In recent years, immunosuppression (IS) after liver transplantation (LT) has become increasingly diversified as the choice of agents has expanded and clinicians seek to optimize the balance of immunosuppressive potency with the risk of adverse events in individual patients. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are the primary agents used for patients undergoing liver transplantation. Other therapeutic agents like interleukin-2 receptor antagonists are not universally administered, but can be considered for the delay or reduction in CNI exposure. An early addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or the mTOR inhibitor everolimus also allows for the reduction in the CNI dose. To reduce the risk of malignancy, in particular of skin tumors, as well as to prevent the deterioration of renal function, everolimus-based therapy may be advantageous. Apart from patients with autoimmune hepatitis, steroids are withdrawn within 3-6 months after transplantation. Overall, immunosuppression can only be standardized in a limited proportion of patients due to specific clinical requirements and risk factors. Future studies should attempt to refine accurate individualization of the immunosuppressive regimen in specific difficult-to-treat patient subpopulations.

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.

Review on immunosuppression in liver transplantation

The optimal level of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation, in particular for the liver, is a delicate balance between the benefit of preventing rejection and the adverse side effects of immunosuppression. There is uncertainty about when this level is achieved in any individual recipient. Immunosuppression regimens vary between individual centers and changes with time as new agents and data are available. Presently concerns about the adverse side effects of calcineurin inhibitor, the main class of immunosuppressive agents used in liver transplantation (LT), has led to consideration of the use of antibody induction therapies for patients at higher risk of developing adverse side effects. The longevity of the transplanted organ is potentially improved by better management of rejection episodes and special consideration for tailoring of immunosuppression to the individual with viral hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma or pregnancy. This review provides an overview of the current strategies for post LT immunosuppression and discusses modifications to consider for special patient populations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Clinical experience with thymoglobulin and antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius as induction therapy in renal transplant patients: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

We describe our experiences with, and compare the outcomes of, 2 groups of renal transplant patients treated with thymoglobulin or antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius as induction therapy at transplant to reduce the incidence of acute rejection and prevent delayed allograft function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four recipients of deceased-donor or living-donor kidney transplants received thymoglobulin, and 23 patients received antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius. Patient and graft survival and efficacy and safety were assessed at 3 months.

RESULTS

The demographic characteristics of both groups were comparable, but the predominant donor type was significantly different. Incidence of complications, delayed graft function, and creatinine concentrations were comparable in both groups. At 3 months after the transplant, patient survival rate was 92% in the thymoglobulin group and 96% in the antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius group (P > .05), and death-censored graft survival rate for both groups was not significantly different. Average hematocrit and lymphocyte, neutrophil, and platelet counts were comparable in both groups at 3 months' follow-up. Average white blood count at 1 month was significantly different between the groups: at 5.62 ± 2.45 × 103 cells/mm³ in the thymoglobulin group and 7.85 ± 4.10 × 103 cells/mm³ in the ATG-F group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the study design limitations, we observed that our group of treated patients, safety, and efficacy of thymoglobulin and antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius were generally comparable.

Induction immunosuppression in liver transplantation: a review

Antibody therapy for induction is seldom used in liver transplantation in the United States, but continues to be used in approximately 10% of patients. The most commonly used antibody at the current time is basiliximab (Simulect, Novartis) and is used in adults with renal dysfunction at the time of liver transplantation with the intention of delaying introduction of calcineurin-inhibitors. In children, the same antibody is commonly used in order to reduce rates of acute rejection. Most patients, adult and pediatric, are treated with initially higher levels of tacrolimus rather than antibody induction.

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.

Early tacrolimus exposure after liver transplantation: relationship with moderate/severe acute rejection and long-term outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver transplant (LT) patients might be overimmunosuppressed as recommendations for tacrolimus trough concentrations (TC) within 4-6 weeks after liver transplantation are set too high (10-15 ng/ml). Early tacrolimus exposure was evaluated in relation to acute rejection and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Four hundred and ninety-three consecutive LT patients receiving tacrolimus as primary immunosuppression (1995-2008) were analyzed. Acute rejection was diagnosed using protocol biopsies at day 6.1 ± 2.5. Median follow-up was 7.3 years (IQR 3.9-10.5). Early tacrolimus exposure (<15 days) was evaluated against moderate/severe acute rejection, chronic rejection, graft loss, chronic renal impairment and mortality using multiple logistic and Cox regression.

RESULTS

Maintenance immunosuppression was tacrolimus monotherapy (48.1%), double therapy combination with antimetabolites or steroids (18%), or triple therapy combination with antimetabolites and steroids (33.9%). Histological grade of acute rejection was moderate in 157 cases (31.8%) and severe in 19 cases (3.9%). Tacrolimus TC>7 ng/ml on the day of protocol biopsy was associated with less moderate/severe rejection (23.8%) compared with<7 ng/ml (41.2%) (p = 0.004). Mean tacrolimus TC 7-10 ng/ml within 15 days after LT were associated with reduced risk of graft loss (RR = 0.46; p = 0.014) compared to TC 10-15 ng/ml. A peak TC>20 ng/ml within this period was independently related to higher mortality (RR = 1.67; p = 0.005), particularly due to cardiovascular events, infections and malignancy (RR = 2.15; p = 0.001). Early tacrolimus exposure did not influence chronic rejection (p = 0.58), or chronic renal impairment (p = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 2 weeks after LT, tacrolimus TC between 7 and 10 ng/ml are safe in terms of acute rejection and are associated with longer graft survival.

Tacrolimus trough levels, rejection and renal impairment in liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We hypothesized that current trough concentrations of tacrolimus after liver transplantation are set too high, considering that clinical consequences of rejection are not severe while side effects are increased.We systematically reviewed 64 studies (32 randomized controlled trials and 32 observational studies) to determine how lower tacrolimus trough concentrations than currently recommended affect acute rejection rates and renal impairment. Among randomized trials the mean of tacrolimus trough concentration during the first month was positively correlated with renal impairment within 1 year (r = 0.73; p = 0.003), but not with acute rejection, either defined using protocol biopsies (r = -0.37; p = 0.32) or not (r = 0.11; p = 0.49). A meta-analysis of randomized trials directly comparing tacrolimus trough concentrations (five trials for acute rejection [n = 957] and two trials for renal impairment [n = 712]) showed that "reduced tacrolimus" trough concentrations (<10 ng/mL) within the first month after liver transplantation were associated with less renal impairment at 1 year (RR = 0.51 [0.38-0.69]), with no significant influence on acute rejection (RR = 0.92 [0.65-1.31]) compared to "conventional tacrolimus" trough levels (>10 ng/mL). Lower trough concentrations of tacrolimus (6-10 ng/mL during the first month) would be more appropriate after liver transplantation. Regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry should allow changes of regulatory drug information.

Review article: use of induction therapy in liver transplantation

Induction therapy is used relatively infrequently in liver transplantation, but developments in induction regimens and strategies for their use are prompting a re-examination of its benefits. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induces protracted, dose-dependent lymphocytopenia with preferential reconstitution of regulatory T-lymphocytes. Non-depleting interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) act selectively on activated T-lymphocytes with a shorter duration of effect. IL-2RA induction with delayed and reduced calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) exposure appears to preserve efficacy, while more aggressive CNI minimisation has been attempted successfully using rATG. Steroid-free tacrolimus monotherapy with rATG or IL-2RA induction is effective if adequate tacrolimus exposure is maintained. Early concerns that addition of induction to a conventional maintenance regimen could lead to accelerated progression of hepatitis C disease, or to an increased risk of hepatocellular cancer recurrence, now appear unfounded using modern regimens. Similarly, with routine use of systemic prophylaxis, recent prospective and retrospective data have not shown a higher rate of infections overall, or cytomegalovirus infection specifically, using rATG or IL-2RA induction. Historical evidence that lymphocyte-depleting agents increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma has not been confirmed for rATG. Wider use of induction in liver transplantation is now merited, using individualized strategies to support reduced CNI exposure or steroid-free immunosuppression.

Tolerance in liver transplantation

Operational tolerance (OT) in liver transplant patients occurs much more frequently than OT of other transplanted organs; however the rate of OT varies considerably with the centre and patient population. Rates of OT range from 15% of the total liver transplant (LTX) patient population down to less than 5%. This review examines the reports of liver OT and compares the factors that could contribute to this variation. Multiple factors were examined, including the time from transplantation when weaning of immunosuppression (IS) was commenced, the rapidity of weaning, the contribution of maintenance and induction IS and the patient population transplanted. The approaches that might be used to increase the likelihood of OT are discussed and the approaches to monitoring OT in LTX patients are reviewed.

Favoring the risk-benefit balance for upper extremity transplantation--the Pittsburgh Protocol

Upper extremity transplantation is an innovative reconstructive strategy with potential of immediate clinical application and the most near-term pay-off for select amputees, allowing reintegration into employment and society. Routine applicability and widespread impact of such strategies for the upper extremity amputees with devastating limb loss could be enabled by implementation of cellular therapies that integrate and unify the concepts of transplant tolerance induction with those of reconstructive transplantation. Such therapies offer the promise of minimizing the risks, maximizing the benefits and optimizing outcomes of these innovative procedures.

Hot-topic debate on tolerance: immunosuppression withdrawal

1. Liver allografts exhibit intrinsic tolerogenic properties that result in their spontaneous acceptance in many experimental animal models. 2. In clinical transplantation, liver allografts require milder immunosuppression regimens than other organs, are relatively resistant to antibody-mediated rejection, and only very rarely are lost because of immunological insults. 3. A fraction of stable liver transplant recipients can withdraw from all immunosuppression therapy and then maintain normal graft function and not experience rejection. This phenomenon is known as spontaneous operational tolerance (SOT). 4. The intentional discontinuation of immunosuppression in stable liver transplant recipients has led to successful weaning in almost 20% of recipients, but the true prevalence of SOT in unselected recipients is still unknown. 5. The prevalence could be higher in pediatric recipients undergoing transplantation before 1 year of age and in adult recipients with more than 10 years of posttransplant follow-up. 6. Rejection occurring during medically supervised immunosuppression weaning trials tends to be mild and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, can be easily resolved without the administration of high-dose immunosuppression. 7. Tolerant liver recipients exhibit specific transcriptional patterns in peripheral blood and liver tissue that may constitute future diagnostic markers of tolerance. 8. There is still no formal proof that the discontinuation of low-dose immunosuppression in long-term survivors of liver transplantation improves the morbidity and mortality rates associated with immunosuppression therapy.