Faouzi Saliba

In Brief Effective immunosupression management is central to achieving optimal outcomes in liver transplant recipients. Current immunosuppression regimens and agents are highly effective in minimizing graft loss due to acute and chronic rejection but can also produce a substantial array of toxicities. The utilization of immunosuppression varies widely, contributing to the wide disparities in posttransplant outcomes reported between transplant centers. The International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) convened a consensus conference, comprised of a global panel of expert hepatologists, transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and pharmacologists to review the literature and experience pertaining to immunosuppression management to develop guidelines on key aspects of immunosuppression. The consensus findings and recommendations of the ILTS Consensus guidelines on immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients are presented in this article. The ILTS consensus document on immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients covers both the scope of therapeutic agents for induction and rejection therapy as well as an overview of complications and clinical management.

BACKGROUND: Albumin dialysis with the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) (Gambro, Lund, Sweden), a noncell artificial liver support device, may be beneficial in acute liver failure (ALF). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether MARS improves survival in ALF. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00224705). SETTING: 16 French liver transplantation centers. PATIENTS: 102 patients with ALF. INTERVENTION: Conventional treatment (n = 49) or MARS with conventional treatment (n = 53), stratified according to whether paracetamol caused ALF. MEASUREMENTS: 6-month survival and secondary end points, including adverse events. RESULTS: 102 patients (mean age, 40.4 years [SD, 13]) were in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. The per-protocol analysis (49 conventional, 39 MARS) included patients with at least 1 session of MARS of 5 hours or more. Six-month survival was 75.5% (95% CI, 60.8% to 86.2%) with conventional treatment and 84.9% (CI, 71.9% to 92.8%) with MARS (P = 0.28) in the mITT population and 75.5% (CI, 60.8% to 86.2%) with conventional treatment and 82.9% (CI, 65.9% to 91.9%) with MARS (P = 0.50) in the per-protocol population. In patients with paracetamol-related ALF, the 6-month survival rate was 68.4% (CI, 43.5% to 86.4%) with conventional treatment and 85.0% (CI, 61.1% to 96.0%) with MARS (P = 0.46) in the mITT population. Sixty-six of 102 patients had transplantation (41.0% among paracetamol-induced ALF; 79.4% among non-paracetamol-induced ALF) (P < 0.001). Adverse events did not significantly differ between groups. LIMITATION: The short delay from randomization to liver transplantation (median, 16.2 hours) precludes definitive efficacy or safety evaluations. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial of MARS in patients with ALF was unable to provide definitive efficacy or safety conclusions because many patients had transplantation before administration of the intervention. Acute liver failure not caused by paracetamol was associated with greater 6-month patient survival. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.