A. Zanetto

Markers of acute rejection and graft acceptance in liver transplantation

The evaluation of the immunosuppression state in liver transplanted patients is crucial for a correct post-transplant management and a major step towards the personalisation of the immunosuppressive therapy. However, current immunological monitoring after liver transplantation relies mainly on clinical judgment and on immunosuppressive drug levels, without a proper assessment of the real suppression of the immunological system. Various markers have been studied in an attempt to identify a specific indicator of graft rejection and graft acceptance after liver transplantation. Considering acute rejection, the most studied markers are pro-inflammatory and immunoregulatory cytokines and other proteins related to inflammation. However there is considerable overlap with other conditions, and only few of them have been validated. Standard liver tests cannot be used as markers of graft rejection due to their low sensitivity and specificity and the weak correlation with the severity of histopathological findings. Several studies have been performed to identify biomarkers of tolerance in liver transplanted patients. Most of them are based on the analysis of peripheral blood samples and on the use of transcriptional profiling techniques. Amongst these, NK cell-related molecules seem to be the most valid marker of graft acceptance, whereas the role CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ T cells has still to be properly defined.

Dropout rate from the liver transplant waiting list because of hepatocellular carcinoma progression in hepatitis C virus–infected patients treated with direct‐acting antivirals

Concerns about an increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence rate following direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapy in patients with cirrhosis with a prior complete oncological response have been raised. Data regarding the impact of HCV treatment with DAAs on wait‐list dropout rates in patients with active HCC and HCV‐related cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are lacking. HCV‐HCC patients listed for LT between January 2015 and May 2016 at Padua Liver Transplant Center were considered eligible for the study. After enrollment, patients were divided into 2 groups, depending on whether they underwent DAA treatment while awaiting LT or not. For each patient clinical, serological, and virological data were collected. HCC characteristics were radiologically evaluated at baseline and during follow‐up (FU). For transplanted patients, pathological assessment of the explants was performed and recurrence rates were calculated. A total of 23 patients treated with DAAs and 23 controls were enrolled. HCC characteristics at time of LT listing were comparable between the 2 groups. Median FU was 10 and 7 months, respectively, during which 2/23 (8.7%) and 1/23 (4.3%) dropout events due to HCC progression were registered (P = 0.90). No significant differences in terms of radiological progression were highlighted (P = 0.16). A total of 9 out of 23 (39%) patients and 14 out of 23 (61%) controls underwent LT, and histopathological analysis showed no differences in terms of median number and total tumor volume of HCC nodules, tumor differentiation, or microvascular invasion. During post‐LT FU, 1/8 (12.5%) DAA‐treated patient and 1/12 (8.3%) control patient experienced HCC recurrence (P = 0.60). In conclusion, viral eradication does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of dropout due to neoplastic progression in HCV‐HCC patients awaiting LT. Liver Transplantation 23 1103–1112 2017 AASLD.

Liver transplantation for viral hepatitis in 2015

Liver transplantation (LT) is a life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease and for patients with liver cell cancer related to liver disease. Acute and chronic liver diseases related to hepatitis viruses are between the main indications for liver transplantation. The risk of viral reinfection after transplantation is the main limiting factor in these indications. Before the availability of antiviral prophylaxis, hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence was universal in patients who were HBV DNA-positive before transplantation. The natural history of recurrent HBV was accelerated by immunosuppression, and it progressed rapidly to graft failure and death. Introduction of post-transplant prophylaxis with immunoglobulin alone first, and associated to antiviral drugs later, drastically reduced HBV recurrence, resulting in excellent long-term outcomes. On the contrary, recurrence of hepatitis C is the main cause of graft loss in most transplant programs. Overall, patient and graft survival after LT for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-associated cirrhosis is inferior compared with other indications. However, successful pretransplant or post transplant antiviral therapy has been associated with increased graft and overall survival. Until recently, the combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin was the standard of care for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Highly active antiviral compounds have been developed over the past decade, thanks to new in vitro systems to study HCV entry, replication, assembly, and release.

Incidence of DAA failure and the clinical impact of retreatment in real-life patients treated in the advanced stage of liver disease: Interim evaluations from the PITER network

Background Few data are available on the virological and clinical outcomes of advanced liver disease patients retreated after first-line DAA failure. Aim To evaluate DAA failure incidence and the retreatment clinical impact in patients treated in the advanced liver disease stage. Methods Data on HCV genotype, liver disease severity, and first and second line DAA regimens were prospectively collected in consecutive patients who reached the 12-week post-treatment and retreatment evaluations from January 2015 to December 2016 in 23 of the PITER network centers. Results Among 3,830 patients with advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis, 139 (3.6%) failed to achieve SVR. Genotype 3, bilirubin levels >1.5mg/dl, platelet count <120,000/mm3 and the sofosbuvir+ribavirin regimen were independent predictors of failure by logistic regression analysis. The failure rate was 7.6% for patients treated with regimens that are no longer recommended or considered suboptimal (sofosbuvir+ribavirin or simeprevir+sofosbuvir±ribavirin), whereas 1.4% for regimens containing sofosbuvir combined with daclatasvir or ledipasvir or other DAAs. Of the patients who failed to achieve SVR, 72 (51.8%) were retreated with a second DAA regimen, specifically 38 (52.7%) with sofosbuvir+daclatasvir, 27 (37.5%) with sofosbuvir+ledipasvir, and 7 (9.7%) with other DAAs ±ribavirin. Among these, 69 (96%) patients achieved SVR12 and 3 (4%) failed. During a median time of 6 months (range: 5–14 months) between failure and the second DAA therapy, the Child-Pugh class worsened in 12 (16.7%) patients: from A to B in 10 patients (19.6%) and from B to C in 2 patients (10.5%), whereas it did not change in the remaining 60 patients. Following the retreatment SVR12 (median time of 6 months; range: 3–12 months), the Child-Pugh class improved in 17 (23.6%) patients: from B to A in 14 (19.4%) patients, from C to A in 1 patient (1.4%) and from C to B in 2 (2.9%) patients; it remained unchanged in 53 patients (73.6%) and worsened in 2 (2.8%) patients. Of patients who were retreated, 3 (4%) had undergone OLT before retreatment (all reached SVR12 following retreatment) and 2 (2.8%) underwent OLT after having achieved retreatment SVR12. Two (70%) of the 3 patients who failed to achieve SVR12 after retreatment, and 2 (2.8%) of the 69 patients who achieved retreatment SVR12 died from liver failure (Child-Pugh class deteriorated from B to C) or HCC complications. Conclusions Failure rate following the first DAA regimen in patients with advanced disease is similar to or lower than that reported in clinical trials, although the majority of patients were treated with suboptimal regimens. Interim findings showed that worsening of liver function after failure, in terms of Child Pugh class deterioration, was improved by successful retreatment in about one third of retreated patients within a short follow-up period; however, in some advanced liver disease patients, clinical outcomes (Child Pugh class, HCC development, liver failure and death) were independent of viral eradication.

Current challenges and future directions for liver transplantation.

Liver transplantation is an effective and widely used therapy for several patients with acute and chronic liver diseases. The discrepancy between the number of patients on the waiting list and available donors remains the key issue and is responsible for the high rate of waiting list mortality. The recent news is that the majority of patients with hepatitis C virus related liver disease will be cured by new antivirals therefore we should expect soon a reduction in the need of liver transplantation for these recipients. This review aims to highlight, in two different sections, the main open issues of liver transplantation concerning the current and future strategies to the best use of limited number of organs. The first section cover the strategies to increase the donor pool, discussing the use of older donors, split grafts, living donation and donation after cardiac death and mechanical perfusion systems to improve the preservation of organs before liver transplantation. Challenges in immunosuppressive therapy and operational tolerance induction will be evaluated as potential tools to increase the survival in liver transplant recipients and to reducing the need of re‐transplantation. The second section is devoted to the evaluation of possible new indications to liver transplantation, where the availability of organs by implementing the strategies mentioned in the first section and the reduction in the number of waiting transplants for HCV disease is realized. Among these new potential indications for transplantation, the expansion of the Milan criteria for hepatocellular cancer is certainly the most open to question.

Levels of angiogenic proteins in plasma and platelets are not different between patients with hepatitis B/C-related cirrhosis and patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Abstract Increasing evidence suggests that levels of angiogenic proteins within blood platelets change at the earliest stages of cancer development and may thus provide a promising diagnostic and prognostic tool. Patients with cirrhosis have increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to study whether development of HCC in hepatitis-related cirrhosis results in changes in platelet levels of angiogenic proteins. We studied the intraplatelet levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), endostatin, platelet factor 4 (PF4) and thrombospondin type 1 (TSP-1) in 38 consecutive patients with hepatitis B- or C-related liver cirrhosis with or without HCC in addition to plasma levels of the same proteins. Twenty healthy volunteers were included to establish reference values for the various tests. Intraplatelet levels of VEGF, bFGF, HGF and endostatin were significantly higher in patients compared to controls. Intraplatelet levels of PDGF, PF4 and TSP-1 were comparable between patients and controls. Plasma levels of VEGF, bFGF and endostatin were comparable between patients and controls. Plasma levels of PDGF, PF4 and TSP-1 were decreased in patients, but this difference disappeared when levels were corrected for platelet count. Intraplatelet and plasma levels of all proteins assessed were comparable between patients with and without HCC. In conclusion, the intraplatelet levels of some angiogenic proteins are elevated in cirrhosis, but do not discriminate between patients with and without HCC. Thus, intraplatelet levels of angiogenic proteins do not seem useful as diagnostic or prognostic biomarker of HCC in cirrhotic patients.

Real-life data on potential drug-drug interactions in patients with chronic hepatitis C viral infection undergoing antiviral therapy with interferon-free DAAs in the PITER Cohort Study

Background There are few real-life data on the potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between anti-HCV direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) and the comedications used. Aim To assess the potential DDIs of DAAs in HCV-infected outpatients, according to the severity of liver disease and comedication used in a prospective multicentric study. Methods Data from patients in 15 clinical centers who had started a DAA regimen and were receiving comedications during March 2015 to March 2016 were prospectively evaluated. The DDIs for each regimen and comedication were assigned according to HepC Drug Interactions (www.hep-druginteractions.org). Results Of the 449 patients evaluated, 86 had mild liver disease and 363 had moderate-to-severe disease. The use of a single comedication was more frequent among patients with mild liver disease (p = 0.03), whereas utilization of more than three drugs among those with moderate-to-severe disease (p = 0.05). Of the 142 comedications used in 86 patients with mild disease, 27 (20%) may require dose adjustment/closer monitoring, none was contraindicated. Of the 322 comedications used in 363 patients with moderate-to-severe liver disease, 82 (25%) were classified with potential DDIs that required only monitoring and dose adjustments; 10 (3%) were contraindicated in severe liver disease. In patients with mild liver disease 30% (26/86) used at least one drug with a potential DDI whereas of the 363 patients with moderate-to-severe liver disease, 161 (44%) were at risk for one or more DDI. Conclusions Based on these results, we can estimate that 30–44% of patients undergoing DAA and taking comedications are at risk of a clinically significant DDI. This data indicates the need for increased awareness of potential DDI during DAA therapy, especially in patients with moderate-to-severe liver disease. For several drugs, the recommendation related to the DDI changes from “dose adjustment/closer monitoring”, in mild to moderate liver disease, to “the use is contraindicated” in severe liver disease.

No evidence for increased platelet activation in patients with hepatitis B- or C-related cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION Cancer is a major risk factor for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Plasma hypercoagulability is an established risk factor for cancer-related VTE. In addition, thrombocytosis and hyperreactive platelets have been implicated in VTE and cancer progression. Cirrhosis is associated with changes in platelet number and function. The platelet activation status of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma has not yet been established. Here we assessed the platelet activation status in patients with hepatitis-related cirrhosis in presence or absence of HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a cross-sectional study including thirty-eight consecutive patients with hepatitis B- or C- related liver cirrhosis in presence or absence of HCC. We studied basal and agonist-induced platelet activation using flow cytometry. In addition, we studied the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) and the VWF-cleaving protease ADAMTS13. Twenty healthy volunteers served as controls. RESULTS We found no evidence of basal platelet activation in patients with cirrhosis compared to controls. However, we found reduced agonist-induced platelet activation in patients. No differences in the basal and agonist-induced platelets activation status between patients with or without HCC were detected. Plasma levels of VWF were increased and the levels of ADAMTS13 activity were decreased in patients compared to controls. No differences between the levels of VWF and ADAMTS13 in patients with or without HCC were detected. CONCLUSIONS HCC development or recurrence in patients with hepatitis B- or C-related cirrhosis does not appear to be associated with platelet activation and changes in pivotal proteins in primary hemostasis.

Hepatitis C virus infection in end-stage renal disease and kidney transplantation.

Liver disease secondary to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) on renal replacement therapy and after kidney transplantation (KT). Hemodialytic treatment (HD) for ESRD constitutes a risk factor for bloodborne infections because of prolonged vascular access and the potential for exposure to infected patients and contaminated equipment. Evaluation of HCV‐positive/ESRD and HCV‐positive/KT patients is warranted to determine the stage of disease and the appropriateness of antiviral therapy, despite such treatment is challenging especially due to tolerability issues. Antiviral treatment with interferon (IFN) is contraindicated after transplantation due to the risk of rejection, and therefore, treatment is recommended before KT. Newer treatment strategies of direct‐acting antiviral agents in combination are revolutionizing HCV therapy, as a result of encouraging outcomes streaming from recent studies which report increased sustained viral response, low or no resistance, and good safety profiles, including preservation of renal function. KT has been demonstrated to yield better outcomes with respect to remaining on HD although survival after KT is penalized by the presence of HCV infection with respect to HCV‐negative transplant recipients. Therefore, an appropriate, comprehensive, easily applicable set of clinical practice management guidelines is necessary in both ESRD and KT patients with HCV infection and HCV‐related liver disease.

Thromboelastometry hypercoagulable profiles and portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND Cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibit hypercoagulability. AIM We investigated whether thromboelastometry can detect hypercoagulability in these patients and the association with portal vein thrombosis (PVT). METHODS At baseline, cirrhotic patients with and without HCC underwent thromboelastometry. PVT onset was recorded over a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS Seventy-six patients (41 with and 35 without HCC) were included. Vital tumor volume (VTV) was  >5cm3 in 18 patients. Fibrinogen was higher in HCC patients with VTV>5cm3 as compared to those with VTV≤5cm3 and those without HCC. Mean platelet count was significantly increased in HCC patients compared with non-HCC. At baseline thromboelastometry, HCC patients showed shorter CTF and higher MCF than non-HCC. PVT incidence was 24,4% and 11.4% in patients with (10/41) and without (4/35) HCC, respectively. Among HCC, 50% of PVT occurred in Child A patients. In HCC, FIBTEM MCF>25mm was associated with a 5-fold increased PVT risk [RR: 4.8 (2-11.3); p=0.0001]. Cox multivariate analysis confirmed HCC and increased MCF (FIBTEM) to be independently associated with increased PVT risk. CONCLUSIONS Hypercoagulability in HCC which can be detected by thromboelastometry is associated with increased risk of PVT even in Child A patients. The clinical implication of these findings deserves further investigation.