No abstract

Preliminary studies suggest preemptive anti-HCV therapy in liver transplant recipients may enhance the rates of viral clearance, but the applicability and tolerability of preemptive therapy has not been evaluated in a contemporary cohort. In this randomized study, the safety and tolerability of preemptive standard (IFN) or pegylated (peg-IFN) interferon alfa-2b (3 MU thrice weekly or 1.5 lg/kg weekly), or IFN/peg-IFN plus ribavirin (600 mg increased to 1.0-1.2 g daily) was initiated 2-6 weeks post-transplantation and continued for a total of 48 weeks. Only 51 (41%) of 124 transplant recipients were eligible for preemptive treatment; eligible patients had lower model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and Childs-Pugh scores pre-transplantation and were more frequently live donor transplant recipients than ineligible patients. Dose reductions and discontinuations were required in 85% and 37% of patients, respectively, and 27% experienced serious adverse events. Growth factor (GF) use (erythropoietin and GCSF) in the latter half of the study did not significantly affect the frequency of dose reductions. Only 15% of patients were able to achieve full-dose treatment during treatment. End-of-treatment and sustained virological responses were 13.6% and 9.1%, respectively, with most responders in the combination therapy group. We conclude that preemptive antiviral therapy is applicable to only a portion of transplant recipients, with 'sicker' patients less likely to be managed by this approach. Living donor liver transplant recipients were more frequently eligible for treatment than deceased donor recipients. Virological response rates are low, likely related to the poor tolerability of therapy and the lack of achievement of target drug doses. Future studies should focus on alternative dosing schedules with more aggressive use of adjuvant therapies, including GFs.

Currently trials of immunosuppression in transplantation are in decline because their objectives remain focused on improving acute rejection rates and graft survival in the first 12 months. With 1 year renal graft survival rates of greater than 90% the best that can be hoped for is noninferiority trial outcomes compared with current standard of care. Current trial design is not leading to novel therapies improving long-term outcomes and safety, and hence important unmet clinical needs in transplantation remain unanswered. Issues that need to be addressed include but are not limited to: prevention of subclinical rejection in the first year, better 5- and 10-year graft outcomes, more effective treatment for high immunological risk and sensitized (including donor-specific antibody) patients, immunosuppressive combinations that are better tolerated by patients with fewer side effects and less morbidity and mortality. In September 2015, the Transplantation Society convened a group of transplant clinical trial experts to address these problems. The aims were to substantially realign the priorities of clinical trials for renal transplant immunosuppression with the current unmet needs and to propose new designs for clinical trials for transplant immunosuppression. Moving forward, the transplant community needs to provide trial data that will identify superior treatment options for patient subgroups and allow new agents to be evaluated for efficacy and safety and achieve timely regulatory approval. Trial designs for new transplant immunosuppression must be intelligently restructured to ensure that short- and long-term clinical outcomes continue to improve.

No abstract

No abstract