Background & Aims Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a non-invasive tool for staging liver fibrosis. We conducted a meta-analysis of individual participant data collected from published studies to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRE and for staging liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). Methods Through a systematic literature search of multiple databases (2003–2013), we identified studies on diagnostic performance of MRE for staging liver fibrosis in patients with CLD with native anatomy, using liver biopsy as the standard. We contacted study authors to collect data on each participant’s age, sex, body mass index (BMI), liver stiffness (measured by MRE), fibrosis stage, staging system used, degree of inflammation, etiology of CLD, and interval between MRE and biopsy. Through pooled analysis, we calculated the cluster-adjusted area under receiver-operating curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity of MRE for any fibrosis (≥stage 1), significant fibrosis (≥stage 2), advanced fibrosis (≥stage 3), and cirrhosis (stage 4) Results We analyzed data from 12 retrospective studies, comprising 697 patients (mean age, 55±13 years; 59.4% male; mean BMI, 26.9±6.7 kg/m2; 92.1% with <1 year interval between MRE and biopsy; hepatitis C in 47.1%). Participants had fibrosis stages 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 (19.5%, 19.4%, 15.5%, 15.9% and 29.7%, respectively). Mean AUROC values (and 95% confidence intervals) for diagnosis of any (≥stage 1), significant (≥stage 2), or advanced fibrosis (≥stage 3), and cirrhosis, were 0.84 (0.76–0.92), 0.88 (0.84–0.91), 0.93 (0.90–0.95), and 0.92 (0.90–0.94), respectively. Similar diagnostic performance was observed in stratified analysis based on sex, obesity, and etiology of CLD. The overall rate of failure of MRE was 4.3%. Conclusion Based on pooled analysis of data from individual participants, MRE has high accuracy for diagnosis of significant or advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, independent of BMI and etiology of CLD. Prospective studies are warranted to better understand the diagnostic performance of MRE.

Treatment with an all-oral interferon-free antiviral regimen using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks resulted in high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates along with minimal adverse events in non-liver transplant (LT) patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. This is the first multicenter report on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this regimen in LT recipients. A total of 123 patients (76% male, 74% white, 60% genotype 1a, 30% METAVIR F3-F4, 4% decompensation, 11% cholestatic recurrence, 7% had kidney transplant, and 82% previously failed pegylated interferon/RBV-based regimens) received treatment and were followed for a median of 30 weeks (range 12-53 weeks). The median time from LT to treatment was 32 months (range 2-317 months). Tacrolimus was the primary immunosuppression in 91% of patients. Minimal immunosuppression dose adjustments were required. An SVR 12 weeks after treatment completion (SVR12) was achieved in 90% of patients (95% confidence interval 84%-96%). In patients with genotype 1a infection, the SVR12 rate was significantly lower in those with METAVIR F3-F4 (71%) compared to those with F0-F2 (91%). Half of the patients achieved undetected HCV RNA at treatment week 4, and their SVR12 rate was significantly higher (96%) compared to those with detectable HCV RNA (83%). Treatment was very well tolerated with mild degrees of adverse events, except for one death possibly due to drug-induced lung injury. In the 25 patients who received RBV, 72% developed anemia requiring intervention. Conclusion: An all-oral interferon-free antiviral regimen using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without RBV for 12 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in excellent SVR12 rates in LT recipients with HCV genotype 1 infection. (HEPATOLOGY 2015;61:1880-1886 H epatitis C viral (HCV) infection is the leading indication for liver transplant (LT) worldwide. Recurrence of HCV is universal among recipients with viremia at the time of transplant and occurs immediately after LT. 1,2 Although the clinical course of HCV recurrence is variable, severe histological recurrence is the most common cause of graft loss and death, which accounts for approximately 60% of graft losses and nearly 50% of deaths by 10 years after LT. 3,4 Liver allograft and recipient survival can be substantially improved with successful eradication of HCV. 5,6 Treatment with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) was not effective and poorly tolerated in the post-LT setting, with reported sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging 24%-45% for patients with HCV genotype 1. 7,8 The combination of direct-acting antiviral agents, in the form of a firstgeneration protease inhibitor (PI), telaprevir or boceprevir, with Peg-IFN and RBV improved SVR rates to

The use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors may provide a valuable source of organs for liver transplantation. Concerns regarding primary nonfunction (PNF) and intrahepatic biliary stricture (IHBSs) have limited the enthusiasm for their use. A retrospective analysis of 1436 consecutive deceased donor liver transplants performed between December 1998 and October 2006 was conducted. These included 108 DCD liver transplants, which were compared to 1328 transplants performed with organs from donors meeting the criteria for donation after brain death (DBD). The median follow-up was 48 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival and graft survival for DCD donors were 91.5%, 88.1%, and 88.1% and 79.3%, 74.5%, and 71.0%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival and graft survival for DBD donors were 87.3%, 81.1%, and 77.2% and 81.6%, 74.7%, and 69.1%, respectively. Patient survival and graft survival were not significantly different between DCD donors less than 60 years old, DCD donors greater than 60 years old, and DBD donors. Causes of graft loss included IHBSs (n ϭ 9), PNF (n ϭ 4), recurrent hepatitis C virus (n ϭ 4), hepatic artery thrombosis (n ϭ 1), rejection (n ϭ 2), and patient death (n ϭ 13). Contrary to previously published data, excellent long-term patient survival and graft survival can be obtained with DCD allografts, and in our experience, they are equivalent to those obtained from DBD allografts. This discrepancy between supply and demand has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality for patients awaiting liver transplantation and has in turn resulted in the search for alternatives in order to offer liver transplantation to more patients.Attempts to increase the number of liver transplants using split liver transplantation and LDLT have met with limited success for adults and currently account for only a small percentage of the total number of liver transplants performed annually. LDLT, for example, peaked at 10% of the total number of liver transplants in 2001 and currently has declined to 5% of liver transplants, except in areas in which the average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplant is

The national outcomes for DCD LT have improved over the last 12 years. This change was associated with modifications in both recipient and donor selection. Furthermore, an era effect was observed, even after adjustment for all recipient and donor variables on multivariate analysis.