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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early steroid withdrawal or steroid avoidance in the tacrolimus (Tac)-based immunosuppressive regimen for liver transplant recipients. According to the requirements of the Cochrane systematic review, a thorough literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane electronic databases between 1995 and 2011 using the key words "liver transplantation," "Tac," and "steroid free" or "steroid withdrawal," restricting articles to the English language. Data were processed for a meta-analysis by Stata 12 software. Altogether 17 prospective randomized controlled trials containing 1,980 transplanted patients were included in this study. The overall pooled RR estimates of 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were 0.985, 0.998, 0.995, and 1.100 (95 % CI 0.925-1.048, 0.934-1.067, 0.894-1.107, and 0.968-1.250, respectively), as well as 0.998, 0.993, 0.945, and 1.053, respectively (95 % CI 0.928-1.072, 0.902-1.092, 0.833-1.072, and 0.849-1.307, respectively). The other pooled RR estimates of acute rejection and chronic rejection rates for all enrolled studies were 1.077 and 0.311 (95 % CI 0.864-1.343 and 0.003-37.207). As for secondary predictors, the pooled RR estimates such as HCV recurrence, HCC recurrence, diabetes, hypertension, kidney dysfunction, bacterial infection, and CMV were 1.101, 1.403, 1.836, 1.607, 0.842, 1.096, and 2.280, respectively (95 % CI 0.964-1.257, 0.422-4.688, 1.294-2.606, 0.926-1.228, 0.693-1.022, 0.783-1.533, and 1.500-3.465, respectively). There were no differences between the steroid group and steroid-free group for all clinical observational indices except for the incidence of diabetes (p = 0.001) and CMV infection (p < 0.001). In summary, our study indicate that rapid discontinuation of steroid in the Tac-based immunosuppressive regimen may not lead to an increased risk of morbidity and rejection rate.

Corticosteroids (CS) have been standard immunosuppression to prevent and treat rejection. However, CS are associated with increased risk of infection, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and accelerated hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence post-orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This study assesses the safety and efficacy of CS-free immunosuppressive regimen in adult OLT.

A two-yr, prospective, randomized study of CS with delayed withdrawal (CS) or CS-free regimen with basiliximab, tacrolimus, and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) was performed in 39 patients (CS=20; CS-free=19). CS group received intra-operative methylprednisolone weaned by six months. HCV patients had HCV PCR pre-OLT and 0.5, one, three, and six months post-OLT. Protocol liver biopsies were performed at OLT, 2 and 24 wk post-OLT or when indicated.

Rejection occurred in two patients. Patient survival at one yr (100% vs. 95%), three yr (85% vs. 63%), and five yr (80% vs. 63%) post-OLT were similar between CS and CS-free group, respectively. Death-censored graft survival at one yr (100% vs. 95%), three yr (85% vs. 63%), and five yr (75% vs. 63%) were also similar. The risk of new-onset DM, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and weight gain was similar between groups.

CS avoidance with basiliximab, calcineurin inhibitor, and EC-MPS is safe and effective as CS- containing immunosuppression in adult OLT.

This prospective, non-randomized, multicenter cohort study analyzed the safety and efficacy of a steroid-free immunosuppressive (IS) protocol for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive living donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients in Japan. Of 68 patients enrolled from 13 transplant centers, 56 fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria; 27 were assigned the steroid-free IS protocol (Fr group) and 29 the traditional steroid-containing IS protocol (St group). Serum HCV RNA levels increased over time and were higher in the St group until postoperative day 90 (POD 14, p=0.013). Preemptive anti-HCV therapy was started in a higher percentage of recipients (59.3%) in the Fr group than in the St group (31.0%, p=0.031), mainly due to early HCV recurrence. The incidence of HCV recurrence at one yr was lower in the Fr group (22.2%) than in the St group (41.4%; p=0.066). The incidence of acute cellular rejection was similar between groups. New onset diabetes after transplant, cytomegalovirus infection, and renal dysfunction were significantly less frequent in the Fr group than in the St group (p=0.022, p<0.0001, p=0.012, respectively). The steroid-free IS protocol safely reduced postoperative morbidity and effectively suppressed both the HCV viral load in the early post-transplant period and HCV recurrence in HCV-positive LDLT recipients.

Infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation. Risk factors relate to transplantation factors, donor and recipient factors. Transplant factors include ischaemia-reperfusion damage, amount of intra-operative blood transfusion, level and type of immunosuppression, rejection, and complications, prolonged intensive care stay with dialysis or ventilation, type of biliary drainage, repeat operations, re-transplantation, antibiotics, antiviral regimen, and environment. Donor risk factors include infection, prolonged intensive care stay, quality of the donor liver (e.g. steatosis), and viral status. For the recipient the most important are MELD score >30, malnutrition, renal failure, acute liver failure, presence of infection or colonisation, and immune status for viruses like cytomegalovirus. In recent years it has become clear that genetic polymorphisms in innate immunity, especially the lectin pathway of complement activation and in Toll-like receptors importantly contribute to the infection risk after liver transplantation. Therefore, the risk for infections after liver transplantation is a multifactorial problem and all factors need attention to reduce this risk.

This randomized, prospective, multicenter trial compared the safety and efficacy of steroid-free immunosuppression (IS) to the safety and efficacy of 2 standard IS regimens in patients undergoing transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The outcome measures were acute cellular rejection (ACR), severe HCV recurrence, and survival. The patients were randomized (1:1:2) to tacrolimus (TAC) and corticosteroids (arm 1; n = 77), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), TAC, and corticosteroids (arm 2; n = 72), or MMF, TAC, and daclizumab induction with no corticosteroids (arm 3; n = 146). In all, 295 HCV RNA-positive subjects were enrolled. At 2 years, there were no differences in ACR, HCV recurrence (biochemical evidence), patient survival, or graft survival rates. The side effects of IS did not differ, although there was a trend toward less diabetes in the steroid-free group. Liver biopsy samples revealed no significant differences in the proportions of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3 with advanced HCV recurrence (ie, an inflammation grade ≥ 3 and/or a fibrosis stage ≥ 2) in years 1 (48.2%, 50.4%, and 43.0%, respectively) and 2 (69.5%, 75.9%, and 68.1%, respectively). Although we have found that steroid-free IS is safe and effective for liver transplant recipients with chronic HCV, steroid sparing has no clear advantage in comparison with traditional IS.

To examine the impact of steroid withdrawal from the immunosuppression protocols in liver transplantation. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library were searched. Meta-analysis pooled the effects of outcomes of a total of 2590 patients enrolled into 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using classic and modern meta-analytic methods. Meta-analysis of RCTs addressing patients transplanted for any indication showed no differences between corticosteroid-free immunosuppression and steroid-based protocols in most of the analyzed outcomes. More importantly, steroid-free cohorts appeared to benefit in terms of de novo diabetes mellitus development [R.R = 1.86 (1.43, 2.41)], Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection [R.R = 1.47 (0.99, 2.17)], cholesterol levels [WMD = 19.71 (13.7, 25.7)], the number of patients that received the allocated treatment [O.R = 1.55 (1.17, 2.05)], severe acute rejection [R.R = 1.71 (1.14, 2.54)] and overall acute rejection [R.R = 1.31 (1.09, 1.58)] (when steroids were replaced in the steroid-free arm). Taking RCTs into account independently when steroids were not replaced, overall acute rejection was favoring the steroid-based arm [R.R = 0.75 (0.58, 0.98)]. Studies addressing exclusively transplanted HCV patients demonstrated a significant advantage of steroid-free protocols considering HCV recurrence [R.R = 1.15 (1.01, 1.13)], acute graft hepatitis [O.R = 3.15 (1.18, 8.40)], and treatment failure [O.R = 1.87 (1.33, 2.63)]. No unfavorable effects were observed after steroid withdrawal during short-term follow-up. On the contrary, significant advantages were documented.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of a steroid-free immunosuppression on hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence. A total of 198 liver transplantation (LT) patients were randomized to receive immunosuppression with basiliximab and cyclosporine, either with prednisone (steroid [St] group) or without prednisone (no steroids [NoSt] group). The group of 89 HCV-infected patients was followed up with protocol biopsies for 2 years after LT. This group of HCV patients are the patients evaluated in the present study. The rejection rate was 19% (St: 21% versus NoSt: 17%; P = 0.67). Patients in the St group had a slightly higher rate of bacterial infections (59% versus 38%; P = 0.05). Almost all patients had histological HCV-recurrence (St: 39/40 (97%) versus NoSt: 40/41 (97%); P = 1). The percentage of accumulated biopsies with grade 4 portal inflammation at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were, 23%, 49%, and 49% in the NoSt group, compared to 33%, 55%, and 69% in the St group, respectively (P = 0.04 at 2 years). The percentage of accumulated biopsies with grade 3 or 4 fibrosis at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 0%, 8%, and 22% in the NoSt group, compared to 8%, 19%, and 31% in the St group, respectively. Immunosuppression without steroids in HCV patients is safe, reduces bacterial infections and metabolic complications, and improves histological short-term evolution of HCV recurrence.

Steroid use after liver transplantation (LT) has been associated with diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and hepatitis C (HCV) recurrence. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of 30 publications representing 19 randomized trials that compared steroid-free with steroid-based immunosuppression (IS). There were no differences in death, graft loss, and infection. Steroid-free recipients demonstrated a trend toward reduced hypertension [relative risk (RR) 0.84, P = 0.08], and statistically significant decreases in cholesterol (standard mean difference -0.41, P < 0.001) and cytomegalovirus (RR 0.52, P = 0.001). In studies where steroids were replaced by another IS agent, the risks of diabetes (RR 0.29, P < 0.001), rejection (RR 0.68, P = 0.03), and severe rejection (RR 0.37, P = 0.001) were markedly lower in steroid-free arms. In studies in which steroids were not replaced, rejection rates were higher in steroid-free arms (RR 1.31, P = 0.02) and reduction of diabetes was attenuated (RR 0.74, P = 0.2). HCV recurrence was lower with steroid avoidance and, although no individual trial reached statistical significance, meta-analysis demonstrated this important effect (RR 0.90, P = 0.03). However, we emphasize the heterogeneity of trials performed to date and, as such, do not recommend basing clinical guidelines on our conclusions. We believe that a large, multicenter trial will better define the role of steroid-free regimens in LT.

Biliary complications remain a significant problem following liver transplantation in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) era. We hypothesized that donor, recipient, and technical variables may differentially affect anastomotic biliary complications in MELD era liver transplants. We reviewed 256 deceased donor liver transplants after the institution of MELD at our center and evaluated these variables' association with anastomotic biliary complications. The bile leak rate was 18%, and the stricture rate was 23%. Univariate analysis revealed that recipient age, MELD, donor age, and warm ischemia were risk factors for leak, whereas a Roux limb or stent was protective. A bile leak was a risk factor for anastomotic stricture, whereas use of histidine tryptophan ketoglutarate (HTK) versus University of Wisconsin (UW) solution was protective. Additionally, use of a transcystic tube/stent was also protective. Multivariate analysis showed that warm ischemia was the only independent risk factor for a leak, whereas development of a leak was the only independent risk factor for a stricture. HTK versus UW use and transcystic tube/stent use were the only independent protective factors against stricture. Use of an internal stent trended in the multivariate analysis toward being protective against leaks and strictures, but this was not quite statistically significant. This represents one of the first MELD era studies of deceased donor liver transplants evaluating factors affecting the incidence of anastomotic bile leaks and strictures. Donor, recipient, and technical factors appear to differentially affect the incidence of anastomotic biliary complications, with warm ischemia, use of HTK, and use of a stent emerging as the most important variables.

Steroid minimization regimens have become increasingly popular for kidney transplant recipients. We studied outcomes for liver transplant recipients with a regimen using rapid discontinuation of prednisone (RDP).

The study group consisted of 83 recipients transplanted between June 2004 and January 2006. Immunosuppression consisted of tacrolimus, MMF, and two doses of basiliximab with six d of steroids. Patients with underlying autoimmune disorders (PSC, autoimmune hepatitis) were not included as they were maintained on steroids. The control group consisted of 83 recipients transplanted between January 2002 and May 2004. Immunosuppression consisted of tacrolimus, MMF and steroids, with no antibody induction. Mean MELD score at time of transplant was significantly higher in the steroid free group vs. the control group (28 vs. 23, p = 0.02); mean donor age was also higher (42 vs. 37 yr, p = 0.02). Other characteristics including recipient age, cold ischemic time, donor source, and cause of liver disease were similar (p = ns). Mean length of follow-up was 16.1 months in the RDP group and 32 months in the control group; a minimum of six months follow up was present for all patients. Patient and graft survival rates were not statistically different in the two groups (p = ns). Biopsy proven rejection was low in both groups and not significantly different (at one yr post-transplant 11% in the RDP group vs. 12% in control, p = 0.53). Based on protocol biopsy data, histologic recurrence of hepatitis C was demonstrated in 56% of the control group hepatitis C positive recipients vs. 39% in the RDP group (p = 0.05). There was a significantly lower incidence of post-transplant diabetes (PTDM) in the RDP vs. control group (at 6 months post-transplant 12% vs. 32%, p = 0.004).

Rapid discontinuation of prednisone in liver transplant recipients is not associated with an increased risk of rejection, and may be associated with lower morbidity, especially PTDM and hepatitis C recurrence.

Hepatitis C represents more than 35% of liver transplant candidates worldwide. Meanwhile, hepatitis B continues to be an important cause of end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia and Africa. Recurrent viral liver disease is a significant event after liver transplantation and continues to be one of the main causes of graft dysfunction and loss in the middle and long-term follow-up. Mechanisms of liver reinfection and disease recurrence vary between these two viruses and pre-emptive as well as the therapeutic approaches are different. Hepatitis B patients can be managed with immune globulin immediately after liver transplant and various agents such as nucleotide and nucleoside analogues can be associated. As a result, disease recurrence has been delayed or prevented in these patients. Individuals transplanted for hepatitis C are known to have universal reinfection and a high rate of disease recurrence has been reported in the literature. Strategies to treat hepatitis C recurrence are limited to the use of pegylated interferon and ribavirin when disease is demonstrated histologically and biochemically, although other strategies have been described with limited or no success. We herein review the mechanisms of disease recurrence and the current as well as the future therapeutic approaches to prevent and to treat these diseases.

While early surgical success made organ transplantation possible in the 1950s and 1960s, the breakthrough in clinical organ transplantation was achieved through the discovery and invention of modern immunosuppressive agents in the early/mid-1980s. Especially during the 1990 s, a large array of immunosuppressants has expanded the armamentarium used to prevent and treat allograft rejection, resulting in an excellent short-term and an acceptable long-term outcome. However, these drugs have potent but still non-specific immunosuppressive properties and frequently show severe acute and chronic side effects, sometimes questioning the overall success.

As the "Holy-Grail" of the transplant community, the induction of "true donor-specific tolerance" has not been achieved yet; current immunosuppressive strategies, in particular in Europe, include "individually tailored immunosuppressive" protocols, mostly based on specific immunologic and non-immunologic risk factors. These protocols allow for optimal immunosuppressive protocols for each patient group according to their needs by choosing the most suitable, well-tolerated combination of agents and the most effective doses to avoid acute rejection episodes (incidence and severity) and minimise drug-related toxicity to reduce long-term drug-related morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, transplant recipient are still being forced to take a life-long course of chemical immunosuppressive agents to keep their graft, knowing about the possible life-threatening side effects.

We review current trends of immunosuppressive protocols in liver and kidney transplantation, focusing on calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing protocols, mammalian-target-of-rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor based-protocols and corticosteroid-avoidance protocols, being aware of the fact, that most of these strategies could be applicable for other transplanted organs, too. Finally, we describe future trends and new developments that are rising on the horizon.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a steroid-free immunosuppression protocol.

From 2001 to 2004, 198 liver-transplant patients were randomized to receive immunosuppression with Basiliximab and cyclosporine, with (St Group) or without (NoSt Group) prednisone. The primary end points were acute rejection, and patient and graft survival. The secondary end points were infection, metabolic complications, and hepatitis C-virus recurrence.

Overall rejection rate was 15%, with no differences (St: 13% vs NoSt: 18%; P=0.33). Infection rate was similar in both groups (St: 51% vs NoSt: 47%; P=0.56), but diabetic patients in the St Group had a significantly higher rate of bacterial infections (St: 54% vs NoSt: 14%; P=0.005). The six-month protocol biopsies showed hepatitis C recurrence in 90% of patients, without differences between groups. Hypertension was more frequent in the St Group (St: 44% vs NoSt: 25%; P=0.006). De novo diabetes rate was higher in the St Group (month 1: St: 29% vs NoSt: 18%; P=0.06), with higher glycatedHb (5.1+/-1.1 vs 4.4+/-0.8; P=0.002). Six-month survival rates were similar (St: 89% vs NoSt: 94%, P=0.62).

Immunosuppression without steroids is safe and reduces infection and metabolic complications.

Corticosteroid avoidance is feasible and may be desirable in liver transplantation. Approximately 50% of liver transplant recipients who use calcineurin inhibitors and azathioprine do not need corticosteroids. The availability of newer agents, such as mycophenolate mofetil and antibody therapy, has increased the percentage of patients who do not need to use corticosteroids to about 75%. The feasibility of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression has been established by controlled trials demonstrating non-inferiority with respect to patterns of rejection as well as patient and graft survival. However, the evidence available to date does not unequivocally establish the benefits of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression, although some advantage has been established relating to post-transplant diabetes mellitus, cytomegalovirus infection and growth patterns in children. The effect of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in hepatitis C liver transplant recipients is yet to be resolved.