Mauro Salizzoni

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial of a bioartificial liver in treating acute liver failure

Objective:The HepatAssist liver support system is an extracorporeal porcine hepatocyte-based bioartificial liver (BAL). The safety and efficacy of the BAL were evaluated in a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial in patients with severe acute liver failure. Summary Background Data:In experimental animals with acute liver failure, we demonstrated beneficial effects of the BAL. Similarly, Phase I trials of the BAL in acute liver failure patients yielded promising results. Methods:A total of 171 patients (86 control and 85 BAL) were enrolled. Patients with fulminant/subfulminant hepatic failure and primary nonfunction following liver transplantation were included. Data were analyzed with and without accounting for the following confounding factors: liver transplantation, time to transplant, disease etiology, disease severity, and treatment site. Results:For the entire patient population, survival at 30 days was 71% for BAL versus 62% for control (P = 0.26). After exclusion of primary nonfunction patients, survival was 73% for BAL versus 59% for control (n = 147; P = 0.12). When survival was analyzed accounting for confounding factors, in the entire patient population, there was no difference between the 2 groups (risk ratio = 0.67; P = 0.13). However, survival in fulminant/subfulminant hepatic failure patients was significantly higher in the BAL compared with the control group (risk ratio = 0.56; P = 0.048). Conclusions:This is the first prospective, randomized, controlled trial of an extracorporeal liver support system, demonstrating safety and improved survival in patients with fulminant/subfulminant hepatic failure.

Evolution of indications and results of liver transplantation in Europe. A report from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR).

Royal Free Hospital, London, UKIntroductionBackground of the European Liver Transplant RegistrySince 1968 the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) collectsprospectively the data of liver transplantation (LT) in 145 centersall over Europe. It represents more than 95% of the overallEuropean data compared to the published official figures [1]. Thiscollectionismadeprospectivelythroughastandardizedquestion-naire. The first part of the questionnaire includes items regardingdate andindicationfor LT,donor andrecipientdata, surgical tech-niqueofLT,andtheimmediatepostoperativeimmunosuppressiontherapy. The second part concerns graft and patient outcome, andimmunosuppressive regimen follow-up. Participation in the ELTRis voluntary and a standard computerized database is provided tocontributing centers with detailed instructions for the collectionof accurate and uniform information [2].Along with reports concerning LT for specific hepatic diseases[3–12],ELTRhasallowedthedevelopmentofriskmodelsforliver-transplantation mortality according to the characteristics of thedonor and recipient, and of the transplant procedure [13,14].Qualityofthedataisassessedroutinely.Aregularauditingpro-cessisconductedeachyeartoensurethereliabilityofthescientificanalysis of the data, a control of the good adequacy between ELTRquestionnaire and patient charts is performed by randomly con-ductedauditvisits.ResultsoftheseauditvisitshaveindicatedthatELTR data were reliable and the scientific results of ELTR can beconsidered credible and representative of LT in Europe [15–18].In addition, a control quality program has been developed inter-nally. The data are subjected to checks for completeness, consis-tency, and range. Comprehensive logical intra- and inter-updatesare performed. Moreover, the ELTR has established agreementswith the European Organ Sharing Organizations (OSO): UnitedKingdom Transplant Service Support Authority (UKTransplant),Spanish Organizacion Nacional de Transplantes (ONT), Scandina-vian Scanditransplant (SKT), Dutch Transplant Foundation (NTS),Eurotransplant (ET), French Agence de la Biomedecine (ABM) toexchangedatacollectedfromEuropeanCentersandtocrosscheckcommon data between OSO and ELTR.Patients and methodsWe have first considered all data since 1968 to show the evolu-tion of results of LT in Europe since its initial development. Therest of the analysis has been undertaken during two differentperiods: (a) from January 1988 to December 2009 (89,865 LT –80,347 patients), where the date from January 1988 was chosenJournal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 57

3-month and 12-month mortality after first liver transplant in adults in Europe: predictive models for outcome

BACKGROUND Mortality after liver transplantation depends on heterogeneous recipient and donor factors. Our aim was to assess risk of death and to develop models to help predict mortality after liver transplantation. METHODS We analysed data from 34,664 first adult liver transplants from the European Liver Transplant Registry to identify factors associated with mortality at 3-months (n=21,605 in training dataset) and 12-months (n=18,852 in training dataset) after transplantation. We used multivariable logistic regression models to generate mortality scores for each individual, and assessed model discrimination and calibration on an independent validation dataset (n=9489 for 3-month model and n=8313 for 12-month model). FINDINGS 2540 of 21,605 (12%) individuals in the 3-month training sample had died by 3 months. Compared with those transplanted in 2000-03, those transplanted earlier had a higher risk of death. Increased mortality at 3-months post-transplantation was associated with acute liver failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.61), donor age older than 60 years (1.16), compatible (1.22) or incompatible (2.07) donor-recipient blood group, older recipient age (1.12 per 5 years), split or reduced graft (1.96), total ischaemia time of longer than 13 h (1.38), and low United Network for Organ Sharing score (score 1: 2.43; score 2: 1.67). However, cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma, alcohol cirrhosis, hepatitis C or primary biliary cirrhosis, donor age 40 years or younger, or less, hepatitis B, and larger size of transplant centre (> or = 70 transplants per year) were associated with improved early outcomes. The 3-month mortality score discriminated well between those who did and did not die in the validation sample (C statistic=0.688). We noted similar findings for 12-month mortality, although deaths were generally underestimated at this timepoint. INTERPRETATION The 3-month and 12-month mortality models can be effectively used to assess outcomes both within and between centres. Furthermore, the models provide a means of assessing the risk of post-transplantation mortality, giving clinicians important data on which to base strategic decisions about transplant policy in particular individuals or groups.

Prevention of hepatitis B virus recurrence after liver transplantation in cirrhotic patients treated with lamivudine and passive immunoprophylaxis

BACKGROUND/AIMS Treatment with hepatitis B virus immune globulins (HBIG) or lamivudine has reduced the rate of hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation to approximately 50%. METHODS To further decrease hepatitis B recurrence, 33 hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhotic patients were treated with lamivudine before liver transplantation and with lamivudine together with low-dose HBIG (46 500 IU the first month followed by 5,000 lU/monthly) after surgery. RESULTS While on lamivudine, serum HBV DNA level decreased significantly in all patients and in 11 (33%) the Child-Pugh score improved. Twenty-six patients were transplanted. Among the 25 who survived for longer than 12 months, only one (4%) experienced a hepatitis B recurrence over an average follow-up of 31 months, a rate significantly lower (P = 0.0002) than the 50% recurrence rate among a historical control group of 12 patients. However, low-level HBV replication was detected sporadically throughout the follow-up in 64% of patients. CONCLUSIONS Over the medium-term, combined prophylaxis with lamivudine and HBIG significantly decreases the risk of hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation. Though low-level HBV infection recurred in two thirds of patients, the pathogenic expression of HBV was prevented.

Impact of donor age and year of transplantation on graft and patient survival following liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus

Background. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has become the most common indication for liver transplantation (LT). Graft and patient survival are adversely affected by recurrent infection of the graft. Recent publications have described an inferior outcome for recently transplanted HCV patients and have highlighted the impact of advancing donor age on severity of recurrent HCV. The donor age at which a measurable impact on graft and patient outcome can be observed has not clearly been defined. In addition, the impact of donor age on graft and patient survival for non-HCV patients needs to be examined. Methods. We have examined a large European liver transplant database to define the impact of transplantation date and donor age on graft and patient survival for HCV patients (n=4,736) and the impact for a comparison group of transplanted alcoholic liver disease patients (ALD, n=5,406). Results. For the entire cohorts, graft and patient survival of HCV patients was inferior to ALD patients. Since 1987, there has been a steady and ongoing improvement in the outcome of transplanted ALD patients, an improvement not observed for HCV patients. Every year since 1989, there has been an increase in liver donor age. Graft and patient survival for both ALD and HCV cohorts was adversely affected by advancing donor age. Comparison of graft and patient survival for HCV and ALD cohorts was made according to donor age (donor age subgrouped <20, 20–30, 30–40, 40–50, 50–60 and >60 years of age). For donors younger than 40 years of age, HCV and ALD recipient graft and patient survival are not significantly different. For donors older than 40, HCV recipient graft survival is inferior to ALD graft survival, an inferiority that increases for each advancing decade of donor age. For donors older than 50 years, HCV recipient patient survival is inferior to ALD patient survival, an inferiority that increases when the donor age is greater than 60 years. Conclusion. The results of liver transplantation for European HCV patients is inferior to a comparison group of ALD patients, and have not improved during the past 15 years. Liver donor age has increased significantly during that period. Advancing donor age has an adverse influence on graft and patient survival for ALD and HCV patients, but a significantly greater impact is observed for HCV patients when the donor is older than 40 years.

Viral load at the time of liver transplantation and risk of hepatitis B virus recurrence

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after liver transplantation is significantly reduced by prophylaxis with hepatitis B immune globulins (HBIG) or antiviral drugs in nonreplicating patients and by the combination of both drugs in replicating patients. However, the load of HBV DNA, which defines replicating status in patients undergoing liver transplantation, remains unclear. This study analyzes the correlation between the viral load, tested with a single amplified assay, at the time of liver transplantation, and the risk of hepatitis B recurrence in 177 HBV carriers who underwent transplantation in a single center from 1990 to 2002. Overall, HBV relapsed after surgery in 15 patients (8.5%) with a 5‐ and 8‐year actuarial rate of recurrence of 8% and 21%, respectively. After liver transplantation hepatitis B recurred in 9% of 98 selected subjects treated only with immune globulins and in 8% of 79 viremic patients who received immune globulins and lamivudine (P = NS). A linear correlation was observed between recurrence and viral load at the time of surgery. In transplant patients with HBV DNA higher than 100,000 copies/mL, 200–99,999 copies/mL, and DNA undetectable by amplified assay, hepatitis B recurred in 50%, 7.5%, and 0% of patients, respectively. Overall, a viral load higher than 100,000 copies/mL at the time of liver transplantation was significantly associated with hepatitis B recurrence (P = .0003). In conclusion, spontaneous or antiviral‐induced HBV DNA viral load at the time of surgery classifies the risk of HBV recurrence after liver transplantation and indicates the best prophylaxis strategy. (Liver Transpl 2005;11:402–409.)

Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplants: efficacy of a six versus a twelve month course of interferon alfa 2b with ribavirin ☆

BACKGROUND/AIMS Interferon (IFN) with ribavirin combination therapy (CT) was proposed for the treatment of hepatitis C recurring in liver transplants. We assessed the efficacy of two protocols of CT in transplanted patients with recurrent severe hepatitis C virus (HCV) hepatitis. METHODS Fifty-seven patients (68% genotype 1b) were treated with IFN alfa-2b 3 million units three times weekly and oral ribavirin 800mg/die for 6 or 12 months. Study end-points were the end of treatment (ETVR) and the 12-month post-therapy sustained virologic response (SVR; negative HCV-RNA). RESULTS ETVR was induced in 9/27 (33%) and in 7/30 patients (23%) treated, respectively, for 6 and 12 months (P=0.4); a SVR was induced in six (22%) of the former and five (17%) of the latter (P=0.4). HCV genotype non-1 patients responded better than genotype 1 (SVR: 43% in genotype non-1 versus 12% in genotype 1, P: 0.02). In ETV responders the hepatitis activity index improved by >2 points in biopsies taken after therapy compared to pre-therapy biopsies. Anemia and leukopenia required reduction of therapy in 51% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS CT is efficacious in controlling HCV disease in about 20% of transplants with recurrent hepatitis C. Six months of therapy are as efficacious as 12 months.

Effect of macrovescicular steatosis and other donor and recipient characteristics on the outcome of liver transplantation

The influence of steatosis and of other donor and recipient characteristics in affecting liver performance post‐orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) was evaluated in 311 consecutive liver transplantations made in 278 patients. Donor variables considered were age, sex, blood group, cause of death, intensive care unit (ICU) days, need for vasopressors, hepatic enzymes and bilirubin, total and warm ischemia time, and macro‐ and microvescicular steatosis. Recipient variables considered were age, sex, blood group, biliary output, and post‐OLT peak levels of hepatic enzymes. Patient and graft survival were the main outcome indicators. 
In the multivariate analysis, macrovescicular steatosis involving 25% or more of the hepatocytes was the only variable independently associated with shorter patient survival (p<0.05). Five (62.5%) of the eight livers with macrovescicular steatosis involving 25% or more of the hepatocytes incurred in a delayed non‐function (DNF) and one (12.5%) in a primary non‐function (PRNF). The incidence of DNF and PRNF in the group with macrovescicular steatosis involving less than 25% of the liver cells was 1.6% (p<0.001) and 2.3%, respectively. Microvescicular steatosis of any degree was not associated with a worse prognosis. 
Macrovescicular steatosis involving 25% or more of the hepatocytes identifies marginal livers, the use of which significantly increases the risk of graft non‐function post‐OLT.

Corticosteroid‐free immunosuppression with tacrolimus following induction with daclizumab: A large randomized clinical study

This open, randomized (1 : 1), multicenter, 3‐month study compared a dual tacrolimus plus steroids (Tac / steroids) regimen with a steroid‐free immunosuppressive regimen of tacrolimus following daclizumab induction therapy (Tac / Dac) in adult liver transplant recipients. The full analysis set comprised 347 patients in the Tac / steroids group and 351 in the Tac / Dac group. Mean tacrolimus dose during month 3 was 0.11 mg/kg/day in both groups; mean whole‐blood trough levels during month 3 were 10.9 ng/mL (Tac / steroids) and 10.6 ng/mL (Tac / Dac). The incidence of biopsy‐confirmed acute rejection that required treatment was similar in both groups: 26.5% in the Tac / steroids group and 25.4% in the Tac / Dac group (P = .727). However, the incidence of biopsy‐confirmed corticosteroid‐resistant acute rejection was higher in the Tac / steroids group than in the Tac / Dac group (6.3 vs. 2.8%; P = .027). Kaplan‐Meier estimates of graft survival (92.2 vs. 90.5%) and patient survival (94.5 vs. 93.7%) were similar in both groups. While also the overall adverse event profiles were similar, the incidences of diabetes mellitus (15.3 vs. 5.7%, respectively; P < .001) and cytomegalovirus infection (11.5 vs. 5.1%, respectively; P = .002) were higher in the Tac / steroids group compared with the Tac / Dac group. Mean cholesterol levels increased by 16% in the Tac / steroids group, but were unchanged in the Tac / Dac group during the study. In conclusion, tacrolimus monotherapy following daclizumab induction is an effective and safe regimen, with an advantage over concomitant steroid‐maintenance therapy in terms of a lower incidence of diabetes and viral infection, and a lower incidence of steroid‐resistant acute rejection. (Liver Transpl 2005;11:61–67.)

The place of liver transplantation in the treatment of hepatic epitheloid hemangioendothelioma: report of the European liver transplant registry.

Background:Hepatic epitheloid hemangioendothelioma (HEHE) is a rare low-grade vascular tumor. Its treatment algorithm is still unclear mainly due to a lack of larger clinical experiences with detailed long-term follow-up. Material and Methods:Fifty-nine patients, reported to the European Liver Transplant Registry, were analyzed to define the role of liver transplantation (LT) in the treatment of this disease. Eleven (19%) patients were asymptomatic. Eighteen (30.5%) patients had pre-LT surgical [hepatic (7 patients) and extrahepatic (3 patients)] and/or systemic or locoregional (10 patients) medical therapy. Ten (16.9%) patients had extrahepatic disease localization before or at the time of LT. Follow-up was complete for all patients with a median of 92.5 (range, 7–369) from moment of diagnosis and a median of 78.5 (range, 1–245) from the moment of LT. Results:HEHE was bilobar in 96% of patients; 86% of patients had more than 15 nodules in the liver specimen. Early (<3 months) and late (>3 months) post-LT mortality was 1.7% (1 patient) and 22% (14 patients). Fourteen (23.7%) patients developed disease recurrence after a median time of 49 months (range, 6–98). Nine (15.3%) patients died of recurrent disease and 5 are surviving with recurrent disease. One-, 5-, and 10- year patient survival rates from moment of transplantation for the whole series are 93%, 83%, 72%. Pre-LT tumor treatment (n = 18) (89%, 89%, and 68% 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates from moment of LT vs. 95%, 80%, and 73% in case of absence of pre-LT treatment), lymph node (LN) invasion (n = 18) (96%, 81%, and 71% 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates vs. 83%, 78%, and 67% in node negative patients) and extrahepatic disease localization (n = 10) (90%, 80%, and 80% 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates vs. 94%, 83%, and 70% in case of absence of extrahepatic disease) did not significantly influence patient survival whereas microvascular (n = 24) (96%, 75%, 52% 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival vs. 96%, 92%, 85% in case of absence of microvascular invasion) and combined micro- and macrovascular invasion (n = 28) (90%, 72%, and 54% 1-,5-, and 10-year survival vs. 96%, 92%, and 85% in case of absence of vascular invasion, P = 0.03) did. Disease-free survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years post-LT are 90%, 82%, and 64%. Disease-free survival is not significantly influenced by pre-LT treatment, LN status, extrahepatic disease localization, and vascular invasion. Conclusions:The results of the largest reported transplant series in the treatment of HEHE are excellent. Preexisting extrahepatic disease localization as well as LN involvement are not contraindications to LT. Microvascular or combined macro-microvascular invasion significantly influence survival after LT. LT therefore should be offered as a valid therapy earlier in the disease course of these, frequently young, patients. Recurrent (allograft) disease should be treated aggressively as good long-term survivals can be obtained. Long-term prospective follow-up multicenter studies as well as the evaluation of antiangiogenic drugs are necessary to further optimize the treatment of this rare vascular hepatic disorder.