Current protocols for prophylaxis against allograft reinfection after liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection include the administration of large doses of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG), with considerable associated economic costs. Monotherapeutic prophylaxis with lamivudine has been complicated by the development of resistant strains of HBV. We studied the effectiveness of a posttransplantation prophylaxis protocol using combination lamivudine and low-dose HBIG in 7 consecutive patients with chronic HBV infection, 4 of whom were serum HBV DNA positive before pretransplantation lamivudine therapy. All patients were serum HBV DNA negative at transplantation and received lamivudine, 100 mg/d, posttransplantation. HBIG, 2170 IU, was administered intramuscularly intraoperatively and daily for 14 days. Maintenance HBIG therapy consisted of 2170 IU intramuscularly twice weekly, tapered to every 2 to 4 weeks by 12 months posttransplantation.Target serum HBIG (HBV surface antibody) titers were less than 500 IU/L for 6 months, then greater than 300 IU/L until 12 months posttransplantation. Induction serum HBIG titers were determined daily in 5 patients, and both serum HBIG and hepatitis B surface antigen were determined every 4 weeks in all patients. One patient died 61 days posttransplantation; the surviving patients (n ‫؍‬ 6) were followed up for a mean of 532 days (range, 395 to 648 days). No patient has developed allograft reinfection. In the induction period, a target HBIG titer of greater than 500 IU/L was not achieved until a mean of 6.8 days (range, 5 to 10 days). In the maintenance period, all patients achieved the target HBIG titer. This suggests combination lamivudine and low-dose HBIG is effective in preventing allograft reinfection by HBV.

BackgroundAdverse drug events are a leading cause of emergency department visits and unplanned admissions, and prolong hospital stays. Medication review interventions aim to identify adverse drug events and optimize medication use. Previous evaluations of in-hospital medication reviews have focused on interventions at discharge, with an unclear effect on health outcomes. We assessed the effect of early in-hospital pharmacist-led medication review on the health outcomes of high-risk patients.MethodsWe used a quasi-randomized design to evaluate a quality improvement project in three hospitals in British Columbia, Canada. We incorporated a clinical decision rule into emergency department triage pathways, allowing nurses to identify patients at high-risk for adverse drug events. After randomly selecting the first eligible patient for participation, clinical pharmacists systematically allocated subsequent high-risk patients to medication review or usual care. Medication review included obtaining a best possible medication history and reviewing the patient’s medications for appropriateness and adverse drug events. The primary outcome was the number of days spent in-hospital over 30 days, and was ascertained using administrative data. We used median and inverse propensity score weighted logistic regression modeling to determine the effect of pharmacist-led medication review on downstream health services use.ResultsOf 10,807 high-risk patients, 6,416 received early pharmacist-led medication review and 4,391 usual care. Their baseline characteristics were balanced. The median number of hospital days was reduced by 0.48 days (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.00 to 0.96; p = 0.058) in the medication review group compared to usual care, representing an 8% reduction in the median length of stay. Among patients under 80 years of age, the median number of hospital days was reduced by 0.60 days (95% CI = 0.06 to 1.17; p = 0.03), representing 11% reduction in the median length of stay. There was no significant effect on emergency department revisits, admissions, readmissions, or mortality.LimitationsWe were limited by our inability to conduct a randomized controlled trial, but used quasi-random patient allocation methods and propensity score modeling to ensure balance between treatment groups, and administrative data to ensure blinded outcomes ascertainment. We were unable to account for alternate level of care days, and therefore, may have underestimated the treatment effect in frail elderly patients who are likely to remain in hospital while awaiting long-term care.ConclusionsEarly pharmacist-led medication review was associated with reduced hospital-bed utilization compared to usual care among high-risk patients under 80 years of age, but not among those who were older. The results of our evaluation suggest that medication review by pharmacists in the emergency department may impact the length of hospital stay in select patient populations.

Our experience with late PCP cases in lung transplant recipients receiving only 1 year of prophylaxis lends support to prolonged PCP prophylaxis in this group. Given the number of patients who had experienced an acute rejection episode or CMV disease preceding PCP in non-lung SOT recipients, consideration should be given to re-institution of PCP prophylaxis for a period of time after these events in kidney, kidney/pancreas, and liver transplant recipients.

Islet transplantation yields improved HbA1c and less progression of retinopathy compared with intensive medical therapy during 3 years follow-up.

While our understanding of the clinical impact of steroid-immunosuppressant interactions is limited, it remains a fact that corticosteroids have complex induction and inhibition interactions with common metabolic and transport pathways. Given the complex interaction of corticosteroids on crucial metabolic enzymes and transporter proteins, monitoring of immunosuppressive agents during steroid withdrawal is warranted to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

Summary Background Coffee is consumed by 50 percent of Americans every day. After oil, coffee is the second most valuable commodity in the world. In recent years a number of studies have suggested potential health risks associated with coffee consumption; however, the results are controversial. Whilst coffee has been reported to increase cardiovascular risk factors, other investigators have demonstrated its protective effects on diseases ranging from type 2 diabetes to Parkinson's disease. A number of investigators have focused their attention on the relationship between the consumption of coffee and liver disease. Aim  To examine the published literature to date in an attempt to establish the presence of an hepatoprotective effect of coffee. Methods  Using PubMed, we identified published studies and review articles relating to the effect of coffee consumption on diseases of the liver. Conclusion  A number of studies have reported the beneficial effects of coffee on abnormal liver biochemistry, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. At the present time the mechanism of this effect remains unclear as does the ‘‘dose’’ required to achieve these benefits.

This review seeks to apply a decision-making algorithm to establish whether clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring (CPM) of sirolimus (rapamycin) in solid organ transplantation is indicated in specific patient populations. The need for CPM of sirolimus, although a regulatory requirement in Europe, has not yet been firmly established in North America and other parts of the world. Sirolimus has demonstrated immunosuppressive efficacy in renal, pancreatic islet cell, liver and heart transplant recipients. The pharmacological response of immunosuppressive therapy with sirolimus cannot be readily evaluated; however, a relationship between trough blood sirolimus concentrations, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and the incidence of rejection has been proposed. Furthermore, sirolimus can be measured in whole blood by several assays--high-performance liquid chromatography with detection by tandem mass spectrometry, or with ultraviolet detection, radioreceptor assay or microparticle enzyme immunoassay. Both experimental animal and clinical data suggest that adverse events and their associated severity are correlated with blood concentrations. To prevent rejection and minimise toxicity, a therapeutic range of 4-12 microg/L (measured via chromatographic assays) is recommended when sirolimus is used in conjunction with ciclosporin. If ciclosporin therapy is discontinued, a target trough range of 12-20 microg/L is recommended. Sirolimus pharmacokinetics display large inter- and intrapatient variability, which may change in specific patient populations due to disease states or concurrent immunosuppressants or other interacting drugs. Due to the long half-life of sirolimus, dosage adjustments would ideally be based on trough levels obtained more than 5-7 days after initiation of therapy or dosage change. Once the initial dose titration is complete, monitoring sirolimus trough concentrations weekly for the first month and every 2 weeks for the second month appears to be appropriate. After the first 2 months of dose titration, routine CPM of sirolimus is not necessary in all patients, but may be warranted to achieve target concentrations in certain populations of patients, but the frequency of further monitoring remains to be determined and should be individualised.

None of the DAAs are completely free of drug interactions. Awareness and management of drug interactions is critical to optimize outcomes and minimize adverse effects in these patient populations.