Liver grafts from hepatitis B surface antigen-positive donors: A review of the literature

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.

Liver transplantation in patients with post-hepatectomy liver failure - A Northern European multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LTX) has been described as a rescue treatment option in severe, intractable post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), but is not considered to be indicated for this condition by many hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons. In this article we describe the clinical experience of five northern European tertiary centers in using LTX to treat selected patients with severe PHLF.

METHODS

All patients subjected to LTX due to PHLF at the participating centers were identified from prospective clinical databases. Preoperative variables, surgical outcome (both resection surgery and LTX) and follow-up data were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients treated with LTX due to severe PHLF from September 2008 to May 2020 were identified and included in the study. All patients but one were male and the median age was 70 years (range 49-72). In all patients the indication for liver resection was suspected malignancy, but in six patients post-resection pathology revealed benign or pre-malignant disease. There was no 90-day mortality after LTX. Patients were followed for a median of 49 months (13-153) and eight patients were alive without recurrence at last follow-up.

DISCUSSION

In selected patients with PHLF LTX can be a life-saving procedure with low short-term risk.

Impact of hepatitis B surface antigen positive grafts on liver transplantation in patients with benign and malignant liver disease

Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) persists after liver transplantation in almost all patients receiving HBsAg-positive grafts. Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is one of the main causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate possible interactions between HBsAg-positive donors, HCC, HBV-related transplant indication, and long-term outcomes. This retrospective study enrolled 1176 patients from two centers between January 2015 and May 2019, of which 135 (11.5%) were HBsAg-positive and 1041 (88.5%) were HBsAg-negative donors. Cox regression models were fitted to study the association between variables and patient and graft survival. In univariate and multivariate analyses, the donor HBsAg status was not significantly associated with patient and graft survival in the entire cohort, but there was a significant interaction between HBsAg-positive donors and HCC, independent of HBV-related transplant indication. The cumulative incidence of patient and graft survival was significantly lower in the subgroup of HCC recipients receiving HBsAg-positive grafts, but no significant difference was found in recipients with benign liver disease. In a subgroup analysis of HCC recipients, HBsAg-positive donors were significantly associated with an increased risk of HCC recurrence (hazard ratio: 1.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-2.48; p = 0.003) and similar results were obtained after propensity score matching analysis. We showed excellent outcomes of using HBsAg-positive grafts in patients with benign liver disease, regardless of HBV-related transplant indications. However, positive grafts should be used with caution in recipients with HCC, which are associated with an increased risk of HCC recurrence.

Hepatitis B Virus/Hepatitis D Virus-Coinfected Liver Transplant Candidate Receiving Hepatitis B Virus-Deoxyribonucleic Acid-Positive Allograft and Treated With High-Dose Hepatitis B Immune Globulin

Liver transplantation (LT) for patients with hepatitis D virus (HDV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) coinfection is uncommon in the United States. Previous case reports described poor outcomes when hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive grafts are transplanted in HBV/HDV-coinfected recipients. However, LT from an HBsAg-negative/HBV-deoxyribonucleic acid–positive donor in an HBV/HDV-coinfected recipient has not been reported. We describe the clinical course and management of an HBV/HDV-coinfected recipient who had LT from an HBsAg-negative/HBV-deoxyribonucleic acid–positive deceased donor and was treated with high-dose hepatitis B immune globulin in combination with an oral tenofovir alafenamide.

2020 position statement and recommendations of the European Liver and Intestine Transplantation Association (ELITA): management of hepatitis B virus-related infection before and after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis of HBV recurrence is critical after liver transplantation in HBV patients. Despite new prophylactic schemes, most European LT centres persist on a conservative approach combining hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and nucleos(t)ides analogues (NA).

AIM

This setting prompted the European Liver Intestine Transplantation Association (ELITA) to look for a consensus on the prevention of HBV recurrence.

METHODS

Based on a 4-round Delphi process, ELITA investigated 16 research questions and established 50 recommendations.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis should be driven according to 3 simplified risk groups: Low and high virological risk patients, with undetectable and detectable HBV DNA pre-LT, respectively, and special populations (HDV, HCC, poorly adherent patients). In low-risk patients, short-term (4 weeks) combination of third-generation NA+ HBIG, or third generation NA monotherapy can be considered as prophylactic options. In high-risk patients, HBIG can be discontinued once HBV DNA undetectable. Combined therapy for 1 year is advised. HBV-HCC patients should be treated according to their virological risk. In HDV/HBV patients, indefinite dual prophylaxis remains the gold standard. Full withdrawal of HBV prophylaxis following or not HBV vaccination should only be attempted in the setting of clinical trials. Organs from HBsAg+ve donors may be considered after assessment of risks, benefits, and patient consent. They should not be used if HDV is present. In poorly adherent patients, dual long-term prophylaxis is recommended. Budget impact analysis should be taken into account to drive prophylactic regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

These ELITA recommendations should stimulate a more rational and homogeneous approach to HBV prophylaxis across LT programs.

The potential use of extended criteria donors and eligible recipients in liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases in Central Sweden

BACKGROUND

Unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is a condition with poor prognosis. A recent treatment alternative improving survival in patients with unresectable CRLM, has emerged with the introduction of liver transplantation (LT), yet not uncontroversial with the current organ shortage. This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the potential of declined donors with acceptable risk as liver graft donors and patients with unresectable CRLM as potential recipients.

METHODS

All declined donors in central Sweden and all patients with CRLM discussed at multidisciplinary team conference at Karolinska University Hospital, January 2013-October 2018, were identified. Donors were classified according to the European Committee Guide to the quality and safety of organs for transplantation and potential recipients were evaluated by selection criteria, based on studies on the Norwegian Secondary Cancer study database.

RESULTS

Out of 1,462 evaluated potential donors, 62 (2.7 pmp) donors were identified, corresponding to 6-18% of the utilized donor pool. Out of 1,008 included patients with CRLM, 25 (2.1 pmp) potential recipients were recognized. Eligibility for LT and left-sided colon cancer were favorable prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Today's donor pool could increase with the use of extended criteria donors, which is sufficient and display an acceptable risk-benefit ratio for patients with unresectable CRLM. With current selection criteria a small subset of patients with unresectable CRLM are eligible recipients. This subset of patients has a better survival compared to patients ineligible for LT.

Limitations of current liver donor allocation systems and the impact of newer indications for liver transplantation

Liver transplantation represents a life-saving treatment for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, a severe condition associated with a high risk of waiting list mortality. When decompensation occurs rapidly in the presence of extrahepatic organ failures, the condition is called acute-on-chronic liver failure, which is associated with an even higher risk of death, though liver transplantation can also markedly improve survival in affected patients. However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how to optimise prioritisation and organ allocation, as well as survival among patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (both before and after transplant). Moreover, it is urgent to address inequalities in access to liver transplantation in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Several controversies still exist regarding gender and regional disparities, as well as the use of suboptimal donor grafts. In this review, we aim to provide a critical perspective on the role of liver transplantation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and address areas of ongoing uncertainty.

Antiviral prophylaxis against hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation: Current concepts

The advance in treatment against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with the development of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) with high genetic barrier to resistance, including entecavir and tenofovir, has improved clinical outcomes of patients transplanted for HBV infection, by preventing HBV recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) effectively. Currently, after LT, the combination of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and a high-barrier NA is considered as the standard of care for prophylaxis against HBV recurrence. However, because of the high cost of intravenous high-dose HBIG, other routes of HBIG administration, such as intramuscular or subcutaneous, have come to the foreground. In addition, several transplant centres tend to use a NA as monoprophylaxis, following a short post-LT period of HBIG and NA combination. Lately, studies using HBIG-free prophylactic regimens with entecavir or tenofovir have shown promising outcomes in preventing HBV recurrence, mostly regarding patients with undetectable HBV DNA at the time of LT. Although vaccination against HBV has been an attractive prophylactic approach, its efficacy has been controversial. Moreover, further studies are needed regarding long-term outcomes of complete withdrawal anti-HBV prophylaxis. For patients transplanted for HBV/HDV co-infection, combined regimen should be administered for a longer period post-LT. Finally, the use of grafts from hepatitis B core antibody-positive donors is safe for HBV-negative recipients, with the administration of lifelong antiviral prophylaxis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Utilization of Hepatitis B Virus-Positive Liver Donors for HBV-Negative Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Utilization of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected donors represents an opportunity to expand the liver transplantation (LT) donor pool. However, benefits of accepting HBV-positive donors for HBV-negative candidates, potentially expanding the donor pool resulting in earlier transplantation, must be balanced with costs of lifelong antiviral therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with two strategies, transplant with (1) a HBV-positive donor versus and (2) a HBV-negative donor for a HBV-negative LT candidate. A healthcare system perspective was utilized, effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years, and costs in 2018 USD.

RESULTS

In the base-case, the HBV-positive donor strategy is more effective (gain of 0.46 QALYs), but $26,159 more expensive, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $57,389/QALY. However, increasing the candidate's Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score resulted in increasing cost-effectiveness, ICER of $69,507/QALY (MELD 6-10) to $47,385/QALY (MELD > 30). Results were most sensitive to antiviral cost and cost after first year of LT. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the HBV-positive strategy was always more effective but more expensive, with average ICER of $64,883/QALY. This strategy was highly cost-effective (ICER < $50,000/QALY) 21% of the time and cost < $100/000/QALY 94% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of these donors must be individualized to each candidate's severity of liver disease, associated costs, and personal preferences that impact quality of life. Expansion of the donor pool to include HBV-positive donors for appropriate recipients may be a cost-effective policy and may provide significant benefit for individual patients.

Update on liver transplantation-newer aspects

Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only therapeutic option offering gold standard treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and acute liver failure (ALF), as well as for certain early-stage liver tumors. Currently, the greatest challenge facing LT is the simple fact that there are not enough adequate livers for all the potential patients that could benefit from LT. Despite efforts to expand the donor pool to include living and deceased donors, organ shortage is still a major problem in many countries. To solve this problem, the use of marginal liver grafts has become an inevitable choice. Although the definition of marginal grafts or criteria for expanded donor selection has not been clarified yet, they are usually defined as grafts that may potentially cause primary nonfunction, impaired function, or late loss of function. These include steatotic livers, older donors, donors with positive viral serology, split livers, and donation after cardiac death (DCD). Therefore, to get the best outcome from these liver grafts, donor-recipient selection should be vigilant. Alcohol- related liver disease (ALD) is one of the most common indications for LT in Europe and North America. Traditionally, LT for alcoholic liver disease was kept limited for patients who have achieved 6 months of abstinence, in part due to social and ethical concerns regarding the use of a limited resource. However, the majority of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis who fail medical therapy will not live long enough to meet this requirement. Besides, the initial results of early liver transplantation (ELT) without waiting for 6 months of abstinence period are satisfactory in severe alcoholic hepatitis (SAH). It will be important to take care of these patients from a newer perspective.

Review article: preventing hepatitis B graft infection in hepatitis B patients after liver transplantation: immunoglobulin vs anti-virals

BACKGROUND

A critical aspect of liver transplantation in hepatitis B patients is to prevent graft reinfection with hepatitis B virus. The use of hepatitis B immune globulin after transplant was a significant milestone, which allowed prolonged graft and patient survival by controlling hepatitis B reinfection in liver grafts. The development of anti-viral treatments with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues, led to a further reduction in graft reinfection and improvement in patient survival. The combination of the aforementioned two therapies has been widely used in hepatitis B-associated liver transplants.

AIMS

To address the post-transplant management of hepatitis B and provide updates on preventing graft reinfection.

METHODS

We performed a literature search on Ovid and PubMed for randomised controlled trials or cohort studies in English, which investigated the effectiveness of hepatitis B immune globulin and anti-viral therapy on hepatitis B-associated transplants (1/2000-1/2020). Studies that met pre-established criteria were reviewed.

RESULTS

Based on currently available evidence, an algorithm for post-transplant management with anti-viral therapy is proposed. Also, the management of recipients who received grafts from hepatitis B core antibody-positive donors is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of hepatitis B immune globulin and anti-viral treatments led to substantial improvement in graft and patient survival. The prevention of hepatitis B graft reinfection is complex and involves a broad interdisciplinary team.

New blood-borne virus infections among organ transplant recipients: An Australian data-linked cohort study examining donor transmissions and other HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B notifications, 2000-2015

BACKGROUND

Blood-borne viral infections can complicate organ transplantation. Systematic monitoring to distinguish donor-transmitted infections from other new infections post transplant is challenging. Administrative health data can be informative. We aimed to quantify post-transplant viral infections, specifically those transmitted by donors and those reactivating or arising new in recipients.

METHODS

We linked transplant registries with administrative health data for all solid organ donor-recipient pairs in New South Wales, Australia, 2000-2015. All new recipient notifications of hepatitis B (HBV), C (HCV), or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after transplant were identified. Proven/probable donor transmissions within 12 months of transplant were classified using an international algorithm.

RESULTS

Of 2120 organ donors, there were 72 with a viral infection (9/72 active, 63/72 past). These 72 donors donated to 173 recipients, of whom 24/173 already had the same infection as their donor, and 149/173 did not, so were at risk of donor transmission. Among those at risk, 3/149 recipients had proven/probable viral transmissions (1 HCV, 2 HBV); none were unrecognized by donation services. There were no deaths from transmissions. There were no donor transmissions from donors without known blood-borne viruses. An additional 68 recipients had new virus notifications, of whom 2/68 died, due to HBV infection.

CONCLUSION

This work confirms the safety of organ donation in an Australian cohort, with no unrecognized viral transmissions and most donors with viral infections not transmitting the virus. This may support targeted increases in donation from donors with viral infections. However, other new virus notifications post transplant were substantial and are preventable. Data linkage can enhance current biovigilance systems.

Feasibility of using marginal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the most effective treatments for end-stage liver disease caused by related risk factors when liver resection is contraindicated. Additionally, despite the decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) over the past two decades, the absolute number of HBsAg-positive people has increased, leading to an increase in HBV-related liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Consequently, a large demand exists for LT. While the wait time for patients on the donor list is, to some degree, shorter due to the development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), there is still a shortage of liver grafts. Furthermore, recipients often suffer from emergent conditions, such as liver dysfunction or even hepatic encephalopathy, which can lead to a limited choice in grafts. To expand the pool of available liver grafts, one option is the use of organs that were previously considered “unusable” by many, which are often labeled “marginal” organs. Many previous studies have reported on the possibilities of using marginal grafts in orthotopic LT; however, there is still a lack of discussion on this topic, especially regarding the feasibility of using marginal grafts in LDLT. Therefore, the present review aimed to summarize the feasibility of using marginal liver grafts for LDLT and discuss the possibility of expanding the application of these grafts.