Immunosuppression and Liver Transplantation

Jan Lerut , Samuele Iesari

Engineering ›› 2023, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (2) : 175 -187.

PDF (1356KB)
Engineering ›› 2023, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (2) :175 -187. DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2022.07.007
Research
Review
Immunosuppression and Liver Transplantation
Author information +
History +
PDF (1356KB)

Abstract

Perfect surgical techniques and adequate immunosuppression are key to ensuring optimal graft and patient survival. The availability of different drugs has led to several, often industry-driven, heterogeneous clinical trials to discover an ideal immunosuppressive regimen. However, the considerable and conceptually diverse study designs have failed to afford a clear definition of the optimal immunosuppression regimen. The triple-drug immunosuppressive regimen, based on the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus, antimetabolites mofetil mycophenolate or azathioprine, and short-term steroids—beyond possible induction—remains the currently accepted standard immunosuppression in liver transplantation. However, this regimen needs to be challenged in light of the changing definitions of rejection, customization of the immunosuppressive load, and long-term side effects due to chronic immunosuppression. Future trials should preferably include more than a single endpoint rather than acute T-cell-mediated acute rejection (a-TCMR) or kidney failure. Conversely, a comprehensive endpoint that covers patient and graft survival rates and the incidence of both acute and chronic rejection is warranted. These immune phenomena should be examined in light of serial long-term biological and histological follow-up. The diagnosis and treatment of clinically relevant a-TCMR should be based on integrated biological, immunological, and histopathological findings. Both elements are critical to progress toward more prudent immunosuppression handling and favor clinical operational tolerance.

Keywords

Liver transplantation / Immunosuppression / Rejection / Tolerance / Clinical trial

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Jan Lerut, Samuele Iesari. Immunosuppression and Liver Transplantation. Engineering, 2023, 21(2): 175-187 DOI:10.1016/j.eng.2022.07.007

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

1. Introduction

Improvements in surgical technique and perioperative care have gradually enhanced outcomes of solid organ transplantation. Immunosuppressive handling is crucial for allograft and patient survival. During the early years of transplantation, steroids and azathioprine were the only available agents to manage the host immune response against the graft; currently, several compounds can guide the donor–recipient interaction[1–2].

Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the most effective and less toxic immunosuppression regimen to protect both the graft and recipient[3–5]. Unfortunately, few studies have adhered to the five criteria defined by Jadad: randomization, blinding, adequate description of the randomization and blinding procedures, and intention to treat follow-up with mention of all dropouts or withdrawals from the study. This partly explains the ongoing search for an ideal treatment regimen [6]. A detailed literature review covering the period 2001–2021 identified only seven double-blinded, prospective, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 50 or more participants; four failed to afford any relevant conclusions for clinical practice (Table 1[7–14]). Despite the initial observations by Starzl [1] regarding graft acceptance from both large animals and humans, multi-agent immunosuppression resulted in the best means to prevent ‘‘repudiation of the allograft.” This policy often generates over-immunosuppression, which is responsible for the development of potentially fatal metabolic (40%), cardiovascular (20%), renal (20%), and oncological and infectious complications (10%–20%) in a high proportion of recipients[15,16]. These side effects explain why long-term outcomes posttransplantation have not significantly improved during the last 20 years and why recipient death with a functioning graft is the most common cause of late graft loss[3–4].

Table 1 Double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs in liver transplantation (LT) during the period 2000–2021.

Underlined items represent the primary endpoint of the respective study.

IS: immunosuppression; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; AZA: azathioprine; CyA: ciclosporin; TAC: tacrolimus; rATG: rabbit-antilymphocyte globulin; MUC: multicentric study; TC: transcontinental study; MOC: monocentric study; pts: patients; BPAR: biopsy-proven acute rejection; TBPAR: treated BPAR; CR: chronic rejection; GS: graft survival; PS: patient survival; HCV: hepatitis C virus; NA: not applicable; NS: not significant; LDL: low-density lipoprotein.

a Ref. [13] reports the long-term results of TAC monotherapy concept.

b Placebo-controlled impossible.

Herein, we critically review the definitions of rejection and optimal immunosuppression, and aim to propose a more rational use of immunosuppression in liver transplantation (LT), as well as provide guidance for future clinical research in the field of (liver) transplantation.

2. Historical note on immunosuppression

In the initial liver and kidney transplantation experiences in Denver, immunosuppression essentially comprised the ‘‘secret cocktail BW322,” that is, prednisone and azathioprine. Subsequently, locally produced antilymphocyte globulins were administered as steroid-sparing agents [1]. These pioneering series presented unsatisfactory survival rates (approximately 20% in the long term), thereby igniting the search for more robust immunosuppressants. A retrospective analysis of these reports indicated the need for a more sophisticated interpretation of these results. Eighty percent of grafts were lost owing to technical reasons, poor organ preservation, and cardiorespiratory complications, with a loss of 20% attributed to immunologic factors. More importantly, several patients reached a tolerogenic state more than 20 years later due to this ‘‘light” immunosuppression regimen[17,18].

The unspecific ‘‘steroid–azathioprine” mix of the 1960s was replaced in the 1980s by the calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based immunosuppression, followed by regimens based on mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition, co-stimulation inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies in the 2000 era[19–21]. The CNIs cyclosporine and tacrolimus transformed the field, given their selective mechanism of action, resulting in the minimization and tolerogenic immunosuppression. One- and five-year patient and graft survival rates have rapidly leaped to 75%–90% and 60%–70%, respectively [2]. Information from personal communications in the pharmaceutical industry has revealed that more than 500 CNI- and mTOR-inhibitor (mTORi)-based multicenter immunosuppression studies have been performed worldwide, with the objective of reducing the incidence of allograft rejection or spring the renal function. Despite the promising potential of several minimization regimens, quadruple- and triple-drug regimens are routinely used in clinical practice [22]. Following the death of Starzl in 2017, the drive for an immunosuppression minimization regimen and the interest in broader-scale tolerogenic immunosuppression strategies have faded. A select group of researchers performed research on tolerance, as shown by a systematic search of the electronic database Medline–PubMed, covering the period from 2012 to June 2022, using the medical subject headings: clinical studies/trials, tolerance, cell therapy, immunosuppression, and LT. The search identified only 19 papers. Unsurprisingly, the immune tolerance network has decided to prioritize tolerance trials in 2022 (personal information).

Past clinical observations and experiences need to be considered when reassessing definitions of rejection and standard immunosuppression for prophylaxis and treatment.

3. Liver acceptance reconsidered

In LT immunology, the first observation was that rejection and tolerance are steps of the same continuum. Consequently, eradicating early acute T-cell-mediated rejection (a-TCMR) against any odds may be counterproductive for long-term graft survival[1,23,24]. Second, prolonged organ engraftment during immunosuppression is a sign of partial tolerance. The interaction between donor and recipient immune systems has proven favorable with regard to outcomes [25]. In 1993, the work by Starzl et al. [26] on cell migration and chimerism after solid organ transplantation revealed that graft accommodation and acceptance without longterm immunosuppression were more than a pipe dream. In 1969, Starzl stated: ‘‘It is almost certain that the continuous presence of a transplanted organ in a host being treated with immunosuppressive therapy often leads to a selective loss of responsiveness to the antigens of the homograft” and ‘‘large doses of immunosuppressants early after transplantation may erode the mechanism of tolerance, and so preclude the goal of minimal dependence on (or independence from) long-term immunosuppression treatment” [1,26–29]. Graft acceptance is based on the dynamic interplay between specific clonal activation, deletion, and exhaustion (Fig. 1 [29]). Eliminating this interaction halts the route of graft acceptance. Observations from small animals with normal graft function after temporary low-dose tacrolimus administration and clinical experiences with immunosuppression minimization encourage transplant physicians to pursue this strategy toward tolerogenicity[29–32]. Thirdly, the liver is an immunologically privileged organ. However, this advantage is largely disregarded, as confirmed by the scarcity of investigations on drug minimization and tolerance induction and the lack of integrated documented biological and histopathological long-term follow-up. The quote by Demetris, ‘‘the biopsy is the science of transplantation,” must be considered in this context [13,32–38]. These three historical observations are essential for the selection process of patients for immunosuppression withdrawal [39].

Fig. 1. (a) Strong multidrug immunosuppression eliminates the process of donor-specific activation–exhaustion–deletion. Therefore, immunosuppression weaning may lead to delayed (chronic) rejection when withdrawing immunosuppression. This situation is comparable to the aftermath of the atomic bombing. The rare survivors are the strongest opponents of nuclear war (the Hiroshima theory). (b) Low CNI-based immunosuppression favors the donor–recipient interaction, which eventually warrants steroid bolus. Pretreatment may attenuate this interaction by reducing the T and B cell ‘‘armies” (the Vatican theory). The ensuing-controlled donor–recipient interaction possibly leads to a subsequent tolerogenic status. The pink and black curved lines indicate the usually observed temporal distribution of graft-versus-host (GVH) and host-versus-graft (HVG) reactions, respectively. Reproduced from Ref. [29], © 2003.

4. Liver rejection reconsidered

A precise definition of rejection is of utmost importance for drawing relevant conclusions from clinical studies examining immunosuppression. The incidence of a-TCMR peaks during the first postoperative week, plunges during the second year (about 5%), and further decreases in the following years (about 2%) [2,12,23,24,36]. The heterogeneity between reports, the different definitions of rejection, and diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria clarify the broad range of TCMR incidence (median ≈ 40%, ranging from 10% to 80%) [31,39–41]. For example, older age, fragility, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)- and alcohol-associated liver disease are associated with reduced immune competence. Better graft quality, particularly from live donation, and administration of depleting antibodies, as induction agents, reduce the risk of immune reactions, while autoimmune liver diseases enhance the risk of adverse immunological events [23,24,42–47].

The clinical course of early a-TCMR is typically benign, as most patients respond to increased doses of CNI and/or highdose steroids. Late a-TCMR, usually defined as an episode occurring 3–6 months after LT, exposes the recipient to a higher risk of developing chronic rejection (CR) and graft loss[23,24]. Moreover, the prophylactic and therapeutic use of corticosteroids markedly differs between studies in terms of type, amount, number, route of administration, and duration[48,49] (Table 2[14,21]). Differences in doses or schemes of immunosuppressants can influence the incidence of TCMR and, importantly, corticosteroid-resistant rejection, defined as a rejection that is unresponsive to a given, center-dependant methylprednisolone dose, eventually followed or not by steroid tapering [8– 10,12,14,23,48,49]. Collectively, these elements clarify the different interpretations of the efficacy of a given immunosuppression regimen (Table 2).

Table 2 Confounding factors in clinical studies about immunosuppression in (liver) transplantation.

MELD: the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; ICU: intensive care unit; UNOS: United Network for Organ Sharing; EBV: Epstein–Barr virus; CMV: cytomegalovirus; DCD: donation after cardiac death; CK19: cytokeratin 19.

a Five items that correspond to the Jadad scale.

b Prophylaxis, as opposed to therapy, implies the use of immunosuppressants to prevent, rather than to treat, an immunological event.

c Induction therapy is considered as a potential confounder in case the primary endpoint of a trial is only BPAR (scored following Banff or rejection activity index (RAI)). Induction is known to reduce tissue inflammatory changes compared to no-induction regimen. When considering both histopathology and clinical evolution (e.g., the necessity to treat), the advantage of induction therapy may disappear[14,21].

One to five percent of LT recipients can develop CR. The definition of CR is not linked to the time elapsed since LT [12,13,24,39,50]. The hallmark lesion is the vanishing- or vanished-bile-duct syndrome (VBDS), ushered by the disappearance of bile ducts in 50% of portal tracts in a representative tissue sample containing at least ten portal tracts. This should always be considered in the clinical context owing to its implications in treatment. Biliary complications are observed in approximately 30% of LT recipients, and medications that induce some degree of hepatotoxicity, such as the frequently used amoxicillin-clavulanate, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and carbamazepine, can mimic the histopathology of CR[51,52] (Table 3). VBDS can also result in immunosuppression reduction or withdrawal, either undertaken for medical reasons or decided by the recipient. Noncompliance or non-adherence was found to be the highest (up to 14%) among LT recipients [53]. Fortunately, reintroducing the previous immunosuppression level can resolve such ‘‘provoked” under-immunosuppression in most cases [29,32,54,55].

Table 3 Drug-induced small bile duct injury after LT.

a Amoxicillin-clavulanate (Augmentin®; GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) is one of the most prescribed drugs worldwide; ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, itraconazole, carbamazepine, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole are used very frequently after LT.

b Chronic bile duct injury can mimic chronic allograft rejection.

Severe graft dysfunction, parenchymal necrosis, bile duct destruction in histology, C4d positivity on immunofluorescence, and donor-specific antibodies in plasma measurements help identify antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Early AMR, also named hyperacute or fulminant rejection, hemorrhagic necrosis or seventh-day syndrome, has been observed under both mild and strong immunosuppression [1,24,56–58]. Compared with other causes of severe allograft dysfunction, including acute rejection, histological examination reveals a markedly high number of apoptotic hepatocytes. After excluding other injuries that cause a similar injury pattern (e.g., hepatic artery thrombosis), this diagnosis can be confirmed by the evidence of donor specific antibodies (DSAs) and tissue complement activation, that is, positive C4d immunohistochemistry on the microvasculature. In ABOcompatible LT, AMR is extremely rare (< 1%), whereas the AMR incidence ranges between 7% and 10% in cases of ABO incompatibility (ABOi). At several Korean and Japanese transplant centers, ABOi LT currently represents up to 30% of all LT. These experiences have largely increased knowledge regarding immune handling in this context [59]. The splenectomy-free approach, which combines preoperative rituximab, a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody, and multiple plasmapheresis sessions, to reduce natural circulating ABO antibodies, has transformed ABOi living donor LT (LDLT) into a valid opportunity, offering 90% and 80% one- and three-year survival rates, respectively [25].

The wide range in the incidence of TCMR warrants establishing a more precise definition[23,24,40]. Thus, four principles must be implemented. First, biopsy is the gold standard to differentiate rejection from other causes of allograft dysfunction and validate rejection treatment [25,35,37,39,50]. The invasiveness and risk of serious complications have deterred the widespread use of perprotocol biopsies, despite their key role in immunosuppression management decision-making. Studies based on per-protocol biopsies, which have revealed that only one-third of recipients with normal liver tests exhibit normal histological features, represent a guide for adjusting immunosuppression[35–37]. Given the poor agreement between transplant physicians on clinically suspected rejection, several treatments are still blindly pursued, posing risks for severe complications, frequently caused by subsequent, unnecessary reinforcement of the immunosuppressive burden [60]. These observations largely outweigh the fear of blank biopsy. Several studies have shown that surveillance biopsies can be safely performed. Complications, reported in 0.35%–5.50% of procedures, can often resolve within one week. Bleeding complications can typically be controlled using interventional radiology, and biopsy-related cholangitis often results from underlying, unknown biliary problems [40,61–63]. Second, the Banff classification is not only useful for grading rejection but also for comparing the results of different experiences in a manner resembling the role of the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification in oncology[35,60]. Third, centralized biopsy reading should be promoted, especially in large transcontinental multicenter studies that frequently assemble dozens of centers with distinct transplant expertise [7,8,64]. In most immunosuppression trials, biopsy readings by several pathologists lead to a major bias regarding the endpoint. Fourth, biology, intended as the evolution of surrogate plasma analytes, and histopathology should be jointly analyzed before reaching any therapeutic decision. Generally, robust immunosuppression can reduce inflammatory infiltrates and, consequently, the Banff score. In this case, the drug or regimen under assessment could be erroneously interpreted as more effective, despite the absence of an impact on clinical practice. In LT, TCMR in perprotocol biopsies does not necessarily require additional immunosuppression if biological parameters do not confirm clinical impairment[24,41]. Not every case of severe biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) warrants treatment [12,14,23,24,65,66]. Remarkably, episodes of treated acute rejection do not necessarily lead to decreased patient or graft survival. This evidence highlights the tolerogenic potential of a controlled alloreaction that renders the graft less susceptible to further immune attacks[23,24,67].

CNIs have turned the traditional stigmata of rejection, including fever, abdominal pain, tenderness, and graft swelling, which are rare and unreliable. Therefore, noninvasive, cost-effective, rapid, reproducible, sensitive, and specific biomarkers of rejection need to be developed. Liver tests, cytokine profiles, inflammatory markers, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) activity, peripheral T-cell clustering, and complex ‘‘-omics” signatures have been previously explored[34,68,69]. More recently, cell-free biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) and donor-derived cell-free DNA have also been incorporated into the diagnostic arsenal. These biomarkers might hopefully gain momentum as noninvasive replacements for biopsy for monitoring and predicting allograft rejection[70,71]. In a trial examining tolerance, Shaked et al. [72] reported that rejection was detected by miRNA measurement up to 40 d prior to clinical manifestations.

Nonetheless, the ideal candidate biomarker remains difficult to identify owing to a marked overlap between rejection and several confounding factors, such as graft steatosis, ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI), focal or systemic infections, biliary and vascular complications, de novo or recurrent viral infections, and drug-induced liver abnormalities. Cytolytic enzymes (aspartate and alanine aminotransferase) and cholestatic enzymes (c-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase) exhibited low accuracy and poor correlation with the severity of rejection. Their dynamics are a surrogate for IRI repair [24]. Progressively increasing serum bilirubin and peripheral eosinophil counts are early a-TCMR markers. Eosinophilia is strongly linked with moderate-to-severe a-TCMR[73–76]. Platelets have been poorly investigated in a-TCMR, although they play a critical role in liver regeneration and the IRI response[77–79]. The platelet count usually begins to grow five days after LT, regardless of the selected immunosuppressive regimen. When thrombocytopenia-inducing drugs, such as azathioprine, mTORi, and antivirals, are avoided, hepato–splenic sequestration and immunologically mediated endothelial graft damage explain the known initial postoperative platelet count decrease. Exocytosis, via the release of von Willebrand factor from platelet surfaces, triggers circulating platelet consumption [80]. An increasing platelet count indicates endothelial repair; conversely, endothelial injury further decreases the platelet count. This type of platelet dynamics has been well-documented in AMR and xenotransplantation[25,59,81]. Several cytokines are expressed during acute rejection, including interleukin 6 (IL6), which recruits eosinophils. The dynamics of these cytokines fail to clearly distinguish rejection from infection, rendering their clinical use unviable. The same is true for identifying cytochrome polymorphisms and T-cell clusters of differentiation proteins [68].

Since 1995, the team from Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, has prospectively investigated the correlation between the Banff score on per-protocol or per-cause biopsies and the aforementioned biological markers to objectively define early a-TCMR in LT. The selected biological parameters include increasing serum bilirubin, progressive eosinophilia, decreased platelet count, and an absolute eosinophilia count > 600 cells·μL–1 from days 5 to 7 post-LT [11–14,73]. In this model, more than two biological markers plus a Banff score ≥ 6 (indicating moderate-to-severe rejection) pivot the histological picture of TCMR into a clinically relevant depiction. Clinical rejection implies a reinforced immunosuppression load by acting on CNI trough levels or dispensing high-dose steroid boluses. In case of non-responsiveness, anti-lymphocytic sera are the most commonly prescri-bed [12,23,24,65,82,83]. This approach has drastically reduced the application of antilymphocytic antibodies for corticosteroid-resistant rejection. This ‘‘seven-up score” was named after the timing, i.e., postoperative day 7, when a-TCMR occurs most frequently and protocol biopsies are performed. The usefulness of this score was investigated in two prospective, all-inclusive, and investigator-driven RCTs undertaken at the University Hospitals Saint-Luc in Brussels. These studies compared tacrolimus monotherapy plus placebo to tacrolimus plus a short-term, two-month steroid therapy; and tacrolimus monotherapy to tacrolimus plus one single, intraoperative, highdose polyclonal rabbit-antilymphocyte globulin (rATG)[12,14]. The second study was not placebo-controlled because rATG requires a mandatory cutaneous test; however, the transplant team was unaware of the intraoperative rATG administration by anesthsiologists (Table 1[7–14]). The very strict adherence to both study protocols led to several important conclusions: ① a light tacrolimus-based monotherapy regimen generates comparable early and long-term survival rates to heavier regimens; ② only 10% of moderate-to-severe histological rejections require treatment; ③ corticosteroid-resistant rejection rarely occurs in patients receiving tacrolimus-based immunosuppression; ④ induction of immunosuppression significantly reduces the day 7 Banff score but does not affect the incidence of clinical rejection and, thus, the need for treatment; and finally ⑤ minimal immunosuppression affords renal protection without endangering graft survival [12,13,55,65,82].

To date, tacrolimus monotherapy has been a successful immunosuppressive regimen in more than 800 recipients. Such findings have shed distinct light on several assumptions drawn from many 21st-century RCTs assessing immunosuppression.

5. Liver standard immunosuppression reconsidered

Standard immunosuppression is considered to achieve a balance between pharmacological side effects and organ and patient survival rates. The annual Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients reveals that the triple immunosuppression regimen, containing a CNI (mostly tacrolimus), an antimetabolite (mostly mycophenolate or mTORi), and corticosteroids, is the most frequent strategy in LT (approximately two-thirds of recipients). This type of regimen is also markedly common in renal transplantation[84,85]. In the past decade, the use of induction therapy has been persistently employed; approximately one-third of recipients have been selected for this approach [86]. Induction includes monoclonal anti-IL2-receptor antibodies, polyclonal anti-T lymphocytes, or anti-thymocyte antibodies. Tacrolimus monotherapy remains an immunosuppressive regimen in a minority (10%) of recipients [84]. The optimal trough blood level of tacrolimus in multidrug immunosuppressive regimens is conventionally between 6 and 10 ng·mL–1 , whereas many recommendations, regulatory authorities, and pharmaceutical industries suggest even higher levels during the first weeks[82,87]. The Consensus on Managing Modifiable Risk in Transplantation (COMMIT) report suggests avoiding underimmunosuppression, that is, tacrolimus levels < 6 ng·mL–1 , in the absence of induction or concomitant immunosuppressants. The same report deters immunosuppression minimization [87].

However, triple immunosuppression, as the standard immunosuppressive regimen in LT, has to be disputed for several reasons. First, is corticosteroid truly necessary? If so, for how long? Is mycophenolate superior to azathioprine? Do mTORIs protect renal function and reduce the recurrence rates in cancer recipients? Finally, does induction therapy offer any advantages? Some accumulated evidence may shed light on these questions. First, multidrug immunosuppression regimens do not radically reduce clinically relevant TCMR episodes. Such regimens may be counterproductive even when administered to low-risk transplant candidates [65,66,83,87,88].

Several drug ‘‘cocktails” have been designed to counteract the adverse effects of a given drug used during early and late posttransplant periods. This strategy mainly focuses on avoiding CNImediated renal and neurological toxicities. Several combinations have proven beneficial in relation to the endpoint under examination. Unfortunately, chronic immunosuppression still compromises the long-term outcomes of transplant recipients[15,16,89]. These disconcerting side effects should be the main drivers for reducing or eliminating the burden of long-term immunosuppression. The first step in this strategy is early withdrawal or complete avoidance of the most detrimental immunosuppressant, i.e., corticosteroids[65,90]. Padbury et al. (the Birmingham group) [90] were the first to demonstrate that this approach is safe, and this experience has been repeatedly and independently validated [9,10,12,15,48,55]. Three systematic reviews examining induction with anti-IL2- receptor and anti-T-lymphocyte antibodies established that induction therapy is not substantially beneficial considering reducing TCMR episodes[21,91,92]. Similar evidence is available in relation to mycophenolate against ‘‘good old” azathioprine, suggesting that markedly inferior costs favor azathioprine therapy [93]. To date, an RCT performed by Wiesner et al. [7] remains the only available report that compared mycophenolate with azathioprine. The authors showed that BPAR, censored for graft loss, was reduced in the mycophenolate group during the first six postoperative months (p < 0.06). One-year patient and graft survival rates were however similar [7]. Based on these findings, mycophenolate has nevertheless almost universally replaced azathioprine in clinical practice. Nonetheless, these findings should be critically reassessed in light of statistical flaws, such as censoring grafts for causes other than rejection, high (36% and 46% at 6 and 12 months, respectively) withdrawal from the study for different reasons, and lack of competing-risk analysis. Germani et al. [93] revealed a significantly elevated incidence of thrombocytopenia in mycophenolate cohorts. Azathioprine-induced hepatitis and nodular regenerative hyperplasia were not documented[94,95]. The antagonism between mycophenolate and azathioprine has recently been explored in kidney transplantation, where no difference was detected between the two drugs in terms of rejection [96]. 

The use of mTORi for renal-sparing approaches and transplant oncology has also been reappraised[97,98]. Most studies that seek to reduce CNI nephrotoxicity compare standard treatment with either delayed CNI and/or anti-IL2-receptor antagonist-based induction or mTORi[83,91,97]. A large multicenter RCT, including 719 recipients with similar baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at randomization (postoperative day 30), showed that the experimental arm, which received everolimus, low-dose tacrolimus, and corticosteroids, exhibited a significantly better eGFR than the standard-level tacrolimus group (eGFR, 80.9 vs 70.3 mL·min–1 per 1.73 m2 at 12 months, and 78.7 vs 63.5 mL·min–1 per 1.73 m2 at 36 months, respectively, p < 0.001) [97]. However tacrolimus trough levels in the experimental arm were maintained at approximately 6 ng·mL–1 , while blood levels were considerably higher in the control group than those currently sought after in clinical practice: 8–12 ng·mL–1 during the first four months, followed by 6–10 ng·mL–1 [82,97,99–101]. Notably, De Simone et al. [97] showed that renal function was significantly better in the third study arm, that is, the group receiving everolimus with tacrolimus elimination. Unfortunately, this arm had to be terminated prematurely owing to the high rate of BPAR. These findings confirmed that early CNI-free immunosuppression should be avoided [97]. A similar observation was reported for mycophenolate. This drug might offer some renal protection, along with several side effects, among which gastrointestinal disturbances and bone marrow suppression remain of particular concern. During monotherapy, this medication is suboptimal because of the high incidence of rejection [102]. Likewise, the Silver study [98], a large multicenter sirolimus-based RCT including 525 recipients, focused on the recurrence of hepatocellular cancer after LT. The sirolimusbased regimen failed to present long-term advantages when compared with sirolimus-free immunosuppression [98]. However, surprisingly, the authors concluded that mTORi-based immunosuppression is beneficial for renal function and tumor recurrence after LT, a strategy that the worldwide transplant community has internalized. In contrast, while low-dose CNI-based regimens and avoidance of unnecessary TCMR treatment diminish tumor recurrence rates, both approaches have rarely been discussed in the literature [103–106]. The added value of mTORi has emerged in the case of persistant vital tumor tissue in the hepatectomy specimen and in case of tumor recurrence.

6. Liver optimal immunosuppression reconsidered

The most important cause of graft loss is the death of a recipient with a functioning graft. Consequently, assuming that immunosuppression-induced comorbidities are a major cause of fatal events in recipients, an optimal immunosuppression approach should naturally imply minimization. Currently, the standard trough levels for tacrolimus and cyclosporine range from 6 to 10 and 150 to 250 ng·mL–1 , respectively [87,100,107].

Minimization implies bringing the patient to the lowest possible well-tolerated immunosuppression level [5,12,82,87]. This process mostly starts with optimal CNI levels based on two agents and gradually evolves after 3, 6, or 12 months. These adaptations depend on the experience of the transplant team and the underlying disease of the recipient, directed toward a single-drug regimen. Of note, upfront monotherapy has ben shown to be also safe and effective [12,29,48,54,55,99].

Minimization of immunosuppression must include CNIs to avoid severe early a-TCMR episodes[54,87,97]. Accumulated literature has revealed that there is no difference in efficacy between standard twice-daily formulations and prolongedrelease tacrolimus when used in a monotherapy regimen. In stable recipients, the enhanced bioavailability of prolonged-release formulations offers more consistent exposure and trough levels. However, the use of prolonged-release formulations can be associated with variable absorption and bioavailability during the first ‘‘unstable” post-transplant days. This variability increases in cases of initial graft dysfunction, an element of concern when donor selection criteria are progressively extended to cope with graft shortages. Accordingly, during the early post-transplant period, twice-daily tacrolimus could allow easier and more rapid adaptation of plasma trough levels, especially in cases of renal failure [108].

Delayed monotherapy can include a CNI, an antimetabolite, or a mTORi, the final choice depending on the occurrence of nephrotoxicity or neurotoxicity, dysmetabolism, and de novo or recurrent tumor or allograft disease [10,12,13,29,55,99,109].

Infra-therapeutic monotherapy is the next-level option if liver tests remain stable for a prolonged period[28,29]. This approach has been proven safe and beneficial, as it contributes to a better metabolic profile, renal function, and quality of life when initiated early enough post-transplantation [10,12,82,87,109]. Several studies that examined the impact of immunosuppression withdrawal on pre-existing complications of long-term immunosuppressive drugs failed to detect a regressive effect. This lack of effect is likely a consequence of overly late initiation of withdrawal. Conversely, early drug weaning leads, most invariably, to drug rejection. Selecting an optimal time for withdrawal needs to consider markedly early and markedly delayed withdrawal [110,111].

In summary, further progress can be achieved by overcoming several fixed dogmas regarding immunosuppression handling, which remains crucial for the evolution of clinical operational tolerance (COT) (Table 4). Regrettably, this path has been deranged by low-quality literature and the changeable long-term immunosuppression handling of recipients. The continuity of care has never been distinctly analyzed with regard to the decision-making process in immunosuppressive treatments. Growing numbers of long-term surviving recipients, new generations of differently trained transplant physicians and surgeons, the governing of patient care by many subspecialties, and progressive patients’ diaspora clarify this lack of continuity of care. This is well-confirmed by the scarcity of reports examining 10-, 15-, and 20-year follow-ups post-LT. Successful immunosuppression handling implies a continuous, life-long adherence to a uniform scheme (and philosophy) based on reliable and up-to-date literature and, most importantly, on familiarity with recipients: ‘‘know your patients” (Table 5). This is the core reason recipients should ideally be followed up by the same transplant team using a centralized patient chart.

Table 4 Ten immunosuppressive dogmas (or beliefs) to reappraise in LT.

Table 5 Ten advice of immunosuppression handling in (liver) transplantation from Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels.

Optimal immunosuppression should take into account the side effects of chronic immunosuppression, as well as include a single patient with a specific indication for transplantation, immune status at and after transplantation, and previous medical and transplant history (e.g., episodes of TCMR, indication for re-transplantation, development of DSA, and intrahepatic biliary complications)[24,39,59]. The distinct need for the type and quantity of immunosuppression has been documented in available transplant literature. Patients undergoing LT for alcohol- and HBVrelated liver diseases require a lower immunosuppressive load. In contrast, patients undergoing LT for autoimmune liver disease (including primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis, and autoimmune hepatitis) or undergoing re-transplantation for immunological reasons necessitate robust immunosuppression. Patients undergoing LT for PBC exhibit prolonged recurrence-free survival when receiving cyclosporin-based immunosuppression. Abrupt changes in corticosteroid dose should be avoided in recipients with HCV infection [112–114].

It is widely known that immunosuppressants exert a prooncogenic activity. Drug levels should be maintained as low as possible in patients with a previous cancer history of hepatobiliary origin or other and an intrinsically high oncological risk (e.g., alcohol-related liver disease). The necessity of immunosuppression minimization has become compelling in the field of oncological transplantation, where selection criteria for LT in primary and secondary hepatobiliary tumors are gradually widening [103–106,115,116].

Preformed or de novo DSAs (dnDSAs) have gained increasing attention based on their association with acute and chronic allograft rejection [117]. DSA should be investigated before and methodically after LT, particularly in cases of unexplained graft dysfunction. Histopathological findings and increasing DSA levels, as assessed by a mean fluorescence intensity > 5000, should drive immunosuppression reinforcement. In addition, protocols for immunosuppression minimization or withdrawal require regular dnDSA screening. Severe acute rejection was found to be a risk factor for dnDSA development, and dnDSA appearing during minimization is associated with acute rejection, deterring complete immunosuppression withdrawal [37,38,55,58,72,87,117,118].

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is considered the fastest growing indication for LT. In this group of patients, increased cardiovascular and metabolic risks should be addressed with a specific immunosuppressive approach. Switching from tacrolimus to cyclosporine is advocated in recipients with inadequate glycemic control, whereas switching from cyclosporine to tacrolimus is recommended in recipients exhibiting refractory hyperlipidemia [87,119].

In addition to tailored immunosuppression, there is a need for refined decision-making when considering the administration of immunosuppressive agents, which should be based on innovative approaches. The trough levels or the presence of a side effect with a particular drug do not portray the real effect on overall immunity or individual needs for immunosuppression [120,121].

In contrast to early postoperative overimmunosuppression and high intra-patient variability, increased cumulative exposure to tacrolimus, calculated by the area under the curve of trough concentrations, affects long-term outcomes. This method of monitoring immunosuppressive load is a valuable tool to appropriately and individually modulate immunosuppression to reduce the risk of potentially lethal side effects [99–101].

Determining drug levels in graft tissues and peripheral blood mononuclear cells is another innovative strategy to address these unmet needs [120,121]. Tacrolimus concentrations in tissue and mononuclear cells have been shown to correlate with the Banff score, in contrast to the high variability in blood levels (Fig. 2 [120]). Simultaneous information regarding ‘‘in situ immunosuppression", biological markers, and histopathological findings represent a means to accurately determine the precise need for immunosuppression. From a logistical standpoint, it is possible to obtain all this information within 1–2 d of serum and tissue sampling.

Fig. 2. "In-situ immunosuppression" and LT: tacrolimus tissue levels well correlate with the Banff score of the biopsy on day 7, in contrast to trough blood levels. Tacrolimus concentration in the graft < 30 pg·mg–1 is significantly associated with TCMR (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 98%). Reproduced from Ref. [120], © 2007.

The ‘‘holy grail” of transplantation is to obtain a functioning graft, without signs of active disease at histopathological analysis, in an immunosuppression-free patient, the definition of COT. At least 20% of carefully selected patients can safely attain this objective, provided detailed biological, histopathological, and immunological surveillance is undertaken[28,32]. Several clinical (older age at LT, male sex, absence of autoimmune disease, and long interval between LT and initiation of drug weaning), histopathological (normal baseline biopsy and absence of inflammation), and cellular and molecular transcription signatures have been recognized as good selection factors for COT. In the prospective studies: gradual withdrawal of immune system suppressing drugs in patients receiving a liver transplant (A-WISH), immunosuppression withdrawal therapy (i-WITH), reprogramming the immune system for the establishment of tolerance (RISET), withdrawal of immunosuppression in pediatric liver transplant recipients (WISP-R), and T regulatory cell (Treg) studies, COT was reached in 13%, 38%, 40%, 60%, and 70% of well-selected liver recipients, respectively [37,38,122–126].

Cell therapy will play a pivotal role in tolerogenic trials and may confer advantages from machine perfusion technology, a platform for immunological modulation and repair of the allograft before implantation [127]. The safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stromal and regulatory T-cell infusions have previously been tested in clinical practice. To date, cell therapy has been used in a very small number of patients owing to the very selective inclusion criteria [126,128–131]. Todo et al. [125] examined the potential of cell therapy in a trial where seven out of ten LDLT-enrolled recipients were successfully liberated from immunosuppression after administering co-cultured donor and recipient T regulatory lymphocytes, considering initial quadruple immunosuppression.

Another approach is co-stimulation blockade, which leads to unresponsive donor–recipient recognition mainly due to a lack of co-stimulatory signals. This strategy, combined with temporary interference with non-antigen-specific signaling molecules, renders T cells anergic or inactive toward antigen-presenting cells. This concept was pioneered in 1997 by the team from Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, in the first-in-human co-stimulation blockade RCT [132]. The locally developed antiCD2 monoclonal antibody (Lo-Cd2, Biotransplant, USA) was infused from post-LT days 1–10, along with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression. None of the 18 long-term survivors required treatment for TCMR episodes. More than five years after LT, five patients were free from immunosuppression, whereas nine were on low, spaced immunosuppression (unpublished personal results). Recently, this concept has been successfully applied to bone marrow and kidney transplantation, as well as for treating CD2+ T-cell lymphoma and psoriasis. Trials in LT are planned for the near future [133].

In conclusion, larger-scale investigator-driven studies are needed to ensure precise conclusions can be drawn from COT trials [122,123,134].

7. Reappraising the literature regarding immunosuppression

To summarize the above-discussed evidence, a standard multidrug immunosuppression regimen is needed. The literature supporting this approach contains numerous clinical trials that are flawed with respect to design, endpoints, and interpretation of the findings [135–137]. Moreover, many trials failed to compare the experimental arm with established immunosuppressive strategies, namely two- or one-drug, low-level (6–8 ng·mL–1 ), tacrolimus-based regimens, started on the day of LT.

The endpoints of trials should include more than a single, specific parameter, such as the incidence of a-TCMR or renal failure (Fig. 3). It would be informative to implement a combined endpoint, based on patient and graft survival and on immune-related outcomes, where the full spectrum of rejection (considering not only acute but also CR) is elucidated by performing a sequential long-term biological and histopathological follow-up (Fig. 3) [41,80,125]. Indeed a-TCMR is not a synonym for suboptimal graft or patient survival and vice versa[7–14].

Fig. 3. Endpoints reported in trials about immunosuppression. (a) Single endpoints; (b) composite endpoints.

Ideally, endpoints should be integrated into a sponsorindependent, investigator-driven, and all-inclusive study following a standardized protocol with methodically coordinated use of concomitant immunosuppressive drugs and other medications in the different study arms. An example of such a rigorous study is the tacrolimus and microemulsified cyclosporin trial in 2002 [31], where O’Grady and coworkers confirmed the advantage of tacrolimus-based immunosuppression in LT. The standardized protocol meticulously harmonized concomitant medications in both treatment groups across all participating centers, examining a composite endpoint, including patient death, re-transplantation, and treatment failure. The editors of The Lancet deemed such a design exemplar for subsequent research on immunosuppression, thereby establishing a new standard [138]. Unfortunately, during the following 20 years, almost no studies on immunosuppression abided by this standard. The ideal trial should adhere to the Jadad and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria [6,139]. Twenty years later, very few trails adhered to these good practices.

Collaterally, a plea for reorganizing LT outpatient clinics should be considered. The care of these frequently polymorbid patients should be centralized around some basic rules in relation to immunosuppression handling (Fig. 3). In addition to an in-depth understanding of hepatobiliary diseases and oncology, the specialty of ‘‘general transplantation medicine and surgery” is urgently required to replace the common ‘‘salami care,” where every complaint mandates another specialist consultation, with a ‘‘global care” strategy. This type of centralized approach, which actively involves the patient and her/his surrounding(s), can tackle the risks of de novo tumor occurrence and cardiovascular, infectious, renal, and neurological complications. These ‘‘general” transplant physicians could potentially optimize the treatment of accompanying endocrinological, osteoarticular, and autoimmune conditions, overcome drug interactions and, most importantly, drive more long-term LT recipients to a state of COT [29,87,119]. The widening selection criteria in LT for primary and secondary liver tumors represent a good example of this proposal. Indeed in the near future, combining immunosuppression, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy will warrant upgraded "general" competencies crucial for LT outcomes for hepatobiliary malignancies [140].

8. Conclusions

Major advances have been achieved in the field of LT. However, long-term outcomes remain overshadowed by numerous side effects directly linked to the chronic use of immunosuppressants. Efforts should be made to minimize immunosuppression based on documented histopathological and immunological long-term follow-up. The development of an ideal immunosuppressive regimen and COT will need all-inclusive, investigator-driven, prospective, double-blinded (and if possible placebo-controlled) RCTs, as well as centralized, long-term, clinical follow-up by an experienced transplant team aiming at the ‘‘global care” of the liver recipient.

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Jan Lerut and Samuele Iesari declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial conflicts to disclose.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]

Starzl TE. Experience in liver transplantation. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1969.
[2]

Starzl TE, Demetris AJ. Liver transplantation: a 31-year perspective. Part I. Curr Probl Surg 1990;27(2):49–116.
[3]

Perry I, Neuberger J. Immunosuppression: towards a logical approach in liver transplantation. Clin Exp Immunol 2005;139(1):2–10.
[4]

Zhang W, Fung J. Limitations of current liver transplant immunosuppressive regimens: renal considerations. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2017;16 (1):27–32.
[5]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Guerrero-Misas M, Thorburn D, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;3(3):CD011639.
[6]

Jadad AR, Enkin MW. Randomized controlled trials. Questions, answers and musings. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2007.
[7]

Wiesner R, Rabkin J, Klintmalm G, McDiarmid S, Langnas A, Punch J, et al. A randomized double-blind comparative study of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids in primary liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2001;7(5):442–50.
[8]

Neuhaus P, Clavien PA, Kittur D, Salizzoni M, Rimola A, Abeywickrama K, et al. Improved treatment response with Basiliximab immunoprophylaxis after liver transplantation: results from a double-blind randomized placebocontrolled trial. Liver Transpl 2002;8(2):132–42.
[9]

Pageaux GP, Calmus Y, Boillot O, Ducerf C, Vanlemmens C, Boudjema K, et al. Steroid withdrawal at day 14 after liver transplantation: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Liver Transpl 2004;10(12):1454–60.
[10]

Moench C, Barreiros AP, Schuchmann M, Bittinger F, Thiesen J, Hommel G, et al. Tacrolimus monotherapy without steroids after liver transplantation—a prospective randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Am J Transplant 2007;7(6):1616–23.
[11]

Filipponi F, Callea F, Salizzoni M, Grazi GL, Fassati LR, Rossi M, et al. Doubleblind comparison of hepatitis C histological recurrence rate in HCV+ Liver transplant recipients given Basiliximab + steroids or Basiliximab + placebo, in addition to cyclosporine and azathioprine. Transplantation 2004;78 (10):1488–95.
[12]

Lerut J, Mathys J, Verbaandert C, Talpe S, Ciccarelli O, Lemaire J, et al. Tacrolimus monotherapy in liver transplantation: one-year results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Surg 2008;248(6):956–67.
[13]

Lerut JP, Pinheiro RS, Lai Q, Stouffs V, Orlando G, Juri JMR, et al. Is minimal, [almost] steroid-free immunosuppression a safe approach in adult liver transplantation? Long-term outcome of a prospective, double blind, placebocontrolled, randomized, investigator-driven study. Ann Surg 2014;260 (5):886–92.
[14]

Iesari S, Ackenine K, Foguenne M, De Reyck C, Komuta M, Bonaccorsi Riani E, et al. Tacrolimus and single intraoperative high-dose of anti-T-lymphocyte globulins versus tacrolimus monotherapy in adult liver transplantation: oneyear results of an investigator-driven randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2018;268(5):776–83.
[15]

Watt KD, Charlton MR. Metabolic syndrome and liver transplantation: a review and guide to management. J Hepatol 2010;53(1):199–206.
[16]

Åberg F, Gissler M, Karlsen TH, Ericzon BG, Foss A, Rasmussen A, et al. Differences in long-term survival among liver transplant recipients and the general population: a population-based Nordic study. Hepatology 2015;61 (2):668–77.
[17]

Starzl TE, Koep LJ, Halgrimson CG, Hood J, Schroter GPJ, Porter KA, et al. Fifteen years of clinical liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 1979;77 (2):375–88.
[18]

Starzl TE, Demetris AJ, Trucco M, Murase N, Ricordi C, Ildstad S, et al. Cell migration and chimerism after whole-organ transplantation: the basis of graft acceptance. Hepatology 1993;17(6):1127–52.
[19]

Calne RY, Rolles K, Thiru S, Mcmaster P, Craddock GN, Aziz S, et al. Cyclosporin a initially as the only immunosuppressant in 34 recipients of cadaveric organs: 32 kidneys, 2 pancreases, and 2 livers. Lancet 1979;314 (8151):1033–6.
[20]

Starzl TE, Todo S, Fung J, Demetris AJ, Venkataramman R, Jain A. FK 506 for liver, kidney, and pancreas transplantation. Lancet 1989;2 (8670):1000–4.
[21]

Penninga L, Wettergren A, Wilson CH, Chan AW, Steinbrüchel DA, Gluud C. Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014(6):CD010253.
[22]

Farkas SA, Schnitzbauer AA, Kirchner G, Obed A, Banas B, Schlitt HJ. Calcineurin inhibitor minimization protocols in liver transplantation. Transpl Int 2009;22(1):49–60.
[23]

Wiesner RH, Demetris AJ, Belle SH, Seaberg EC, Lake JR, Zetterman RK, et al. Acute hepatic allograft rejection: incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome. Hepatology 1998;28(3):638–45.
[24]

Neuberger J, Adams DH. What is the significance of acute liver allograft rejection? J Hepatol 1998;29(1):143–50.
[25]

Egawa H, Umeshita K, Uemoto S. Optimal dosage regimen for rituximab in ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2017;24(2):89–94.
[26]

Starzl TE, Demetris AJ, Murase N, Thomson AW, Trucco M, Ricordi C. Donor cell chimerism permitted by immunosuppressive drugs: a new view of organ transplantation. Immunol Today 1993;14(6):326–32.
[27]

Murase N, Starzl TE, Tanabe M, Fujisaki S, Miyazawa H, Ye Q, et al. Variable chimerism, graft-versus-host disease, and tolerance after different kinds of cell and whole organ transplantation from Lewis to brown Norway rats. Transplantation 1995;60(2):158–70.
[28]

Starzl TE. Immunosuppressive therapy and tolerance of organ allografts. N Engl J Med 2008;358(4):407–11.
[29]

Starzl TE, Murase N, Abu-Elmagd K, Gray EA, Shapiro R, Eghtesad B, et al. Tolerogenic immunosuppression for organ transplantation. Lancet 2003;361 (9368):1502–10.
[30]

McAlister VC, Haddad E, Renouf E, Malthaner RA, Kjaer MS, Gluud LL. Cyclosporin versus tacrolimus as primary immunosuppressant after liver transplantation: a meta-analysis. Am J Transplant 2006;6(7):1578–85.
[31]

O’Grady JG, Burroughs A, Hardy P, Elbourne D, Truesdale A, UK and Republic of Ireland Liver Transplant Study Group. Tacrolimus versus microemulsified ciclosporin in liver transplantation: the TMC randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360(9340):1119–25.
[32]

Lerut J, Sanchez-Fueyo A. An appraisal of tolerance in liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2006;6(8):1774–80.
[33]

Appenzeller-Herzog C, Hartleif S, Vionnet J. Clinical parameters and biomarkers predicting spontaneous operational tolerance after liver transplantation: a scoping review. Am J Transplant 2021;21(10):3312–23.
[34]

Vionnet J, Sánchez-Fueyo A. Biomarkers of immune tolerance in liver transplantation. Hum Immunol 2018;79(5):388–94.
[35]

Demetris A.; Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology. Importance of liver biopsy findings in immunosuppression management: biopsy monitoring and working criteria for patients with operational tolerance. Liver Transpl 2012;18(10):1154–70.
[36]

Yoshitomi M, Koshiba T, Haga H, Li Y, Zhao X, Cheng D, et al. Requirement of protocol biopsy before and after complete cessation of immunosuppression after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2009;87(4):606–14.
[37]

Feng S, Demetris AJ, Spain KM, Kanaparthi S, Burrell BE, Ekong UD, et al. Fiveyear histological and serological follow-up of operationally tolerant pediatric liver transplant recipients enrolled in WISP-R. Hepatology 2017;65 (2):647–60.
[38]

Shaked A, DesMarais MR, Kopetskie H, Feng S, Punch JD, Levitsky J, et al. Outcomes of immunosuppression minimization and withdrawal early after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2019;19(5):1397–409.
[39]

Demetris AJ, Adeyi O, Bellamy CO, Clouston A, Charlotte F, Czaja A, et al. Liver biopsy interpretation for causes of late liver allograft dysfunction. Hepatology 2006;44(2):489–501.
[40]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, De Luca L, Crespo G, Rubin Á, Marín S, Benlloch S, et al. An objective definition for clinical suspicion of T-cell-mediated rejection after liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 2017;31(7):e13005.
[41]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Rico-Juri JM, Tsochatzis E, Burra P, De la Mata M, Lerut J. Biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection as an efficacy endpoint of randomized trials in liver transplantation: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Transpl Int 2016;29(9):961–73.
[42]

Ikegami T, Bekki Y, Imai D, Yoshizumi T, Ninomiya M, Hayashi H, et al. Clinical outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for patients 65 years old or older with preserved performance status. Liver Transpl 2014;20(4):408–15.
[43]

Heinbokel T, Hock K, Liu G, Edtinger K, Elkhal A, Tullius SG. Impact of immunosenescence on transplant outcome. Transpl Int 2013;26(3):242–53.
[44]

Wakabayashi T, Shinoda M, Obara H, Kitago M, Yagi H, Abe Y, et al. Decreased incidence of acute cellular rejection in low-muscle-mass recipients after living-donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2018;50(10):3626–34.
[45]

Au KP, Chan SC, Chok KH, Sharr WW, Dai WC, Sin SL, et al. Clinical factors affecting rejection rates in liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2015;14(4):367–73.
[46]

Hann A, Osei-Bordom DC, Neil DAH, Ronca V, Warner S, Perera MTPR. The human immune response to cadaveric and living donor liver allografts. Front Immunol 2020;11:1227.
[47]

Badawy A, Kaido T, Yoshizawa A, Yagi S, Fukumitsu K, Okajima H, et al. Human leukocyte antigen compatibility and lymphocyte cross-matching play no significant role in the current adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 2018;32(4):e13234.
[48]

Sgourakis G, Dedemadi G. Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression in liver transplantation: an evidence-based review. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20 (31):10703–14.
[49]

Volpin R, Angeli P, Galioto A, Fasolato S, Neri D, Barbazza F, et al. Comparison between two high-dose methylprednisolone schedules in the treatment of acute hepatic cellular rejection in liver transplant recipients: a controlled clinical trial. Liver Transpl 2002;8(6):527–34.
[50]

Demetris AJ. Longterm outcome of the liver graft: the pathologist’s perspective. Liver Transpl 2017;23(S1):S70–5.
[51]

Navez J, Iesari S, Kourta D, Baami-Mariza K, Nadiri M, Goffette P, et al. The real incidence of biliary tract complications after adult liver transplantation: the role of the prospective routine use of cholangiography during post-transplant follow-up. Transpl Int 2021;34(2):245–58.
[52]

Lerut J. Drug prescription after liver transplantation: immunosuppressive drugs and other drugs. In: Berenguer M, editor. Liver transplantation for nonspecialists. Barcelona: Permanyer Publications; 2006. p. 121–42.
[53]

De Geest S, Burkhalter H, Bogert L, Berben L, Glass TR, Denhaerynck K, et al. Describing the evolution of medication nonadherence from pretransplant until 3 years post-transplant and determining pretransplant medication nonadherence as risk factor for post-transplant nonadherence to immunosuppressives: the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. Transpl Int 2014;27(7):657–66.
[54]

Albano L. Review of clinical trials on minimization and interruption of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) and protocols without CNIs in the transplantation of different organs (kidney, heart, and liver). Nephrol Ther 2009;5(Suppl 6):S371–8. French.
[55]

Lan X, Liu MG, Chen HX, Liu HM, Zeng W, Wei D, et al. Efficacy of immunosuppression monotherapy after liver transplantation: a metaanalysis. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20(34):12330–40.
[56]

Memon MA, Karademir S, Shen J, Koukoulis G, Fabrega F, Williams JW, et al. Seventh day syndrome—acute hepatocyte apoptosis associated with a unique syndrome of graft loss following liver transplantation. Liver 2001;21(1):13–7.
[57]

Hwang S, Lee SG, Ahn CS, Kim KH, Moon DB, Ha TY. Reappraisal of seventhday syndrome following living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2006;38(9):2961–3.
[58]

Demetris AJ, Bellamy C, Hübscher SG, O’Leary J, Randhawa PS, Feng S, et al. 2016 comprehensive update of the banff working group on liver allograft pathology: introduction of antibody-mediated rejection. Am J Transplant 2016;16(10):2816–35.
[59]

Song GW, Lee SG, Hwang S, Kim KH, Ahn CS, Moon DB, et al. ABOincompatible adult living donor liver transplantation under the desensitization protocol with rituximab. Am J Transplant 2016;16(1):157–70.
[60]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, García-Caparrós C, Tsochatzis E, Germani G, Hogan B, Poyato-González A, et al. Lack of agreement for defining ‘clinical suspicion of rejection’ in liver transplantation: a model to select candidates for liver biopsy. Transpl Int 2015;28(4):455–64.
[61]

Lang M, Neumann UP, Müller AR, Bechstein WO, Neuhaus R, Neuhaus P. Complications of percutaneous liver biopsy in patients after liver transplantation. Z Gastroenterol 1999;37(3):205–8. Germany.
[62]

Perito ER, Martinez M, Turmelle YP, Mason K, Spain KM, Bucuvalas JC, et al. Posttransplant biopsy risk for stable long-term pediatric liver transplant recipients: 451 percutaneous biopsies from two multicenter immunosuppression withdrawal trials. Am J Transplant 2019;19(5):1545–51.
[63]

Saunders EA, Engel B, Höfer A, Hartleben B, Vondran FWR, Richter N, et al. Outcome and safety of a surveillance biopsy guided personalized immunosuppression program after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2022;22(2):519–31.
[64]

Levy G, Villamil F, Samuel D, Sanjuan F, Grazi GL, Wu Y, et al. Results of LIS2T, a multicenter, randomized study comparing cyclosporine microemulsion with C2 monitoring and tacrolimus with C0 monitoring in de novo liver transplantation. Transplantation 2004;77(11):1632–8.
[65]

Neuhaus P, Bechstein WO, Blumhardt G, Wiens M, Lemmens P, Langrehr JM, et al. Comparison of quadruple immunosuppression after liver transplantation with ATG or IL-2 receptor antibody. Transplantation 1993;55(6):1320–7.
[66]

Tzakis AG, Tryphonopoulos P, Kato T, Nishida S, Levi DM, Madariaga JR, et al. Preliminary experience with alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) and low-dose tacrolimus immunosuppression in adult liver transplantation. Transplantation 2004;77(8):1209–14.
[67]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Germani G, Papastergiou V, Tsochatzis E, Thalassinos E, Luong TV, et al. Early tacrolimus exposure after liver transplantation: relationship with moderate/severe acute rejection and long-term outcome. J Hepatol 2013;58(2):262–70.
[68]

Verhelst XP, Troisi RI, Colle I, Geerts A, van Vlierberghe H. Biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection in liver transplant recipients: a review. Hepatol Res 2013;43(2):165–78.
[69]

Germani G, Rodriguez-Castro K, Russo FP, Senzolo M, Zanetto A, Ferrarese A, et al. Markers of acute rejection and graft acceptance in liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21(4):1061–8.
[70]

Bardhi E, McDaniels J, Rousselle T, Maluf DG, Mas VR. Nucleic acid biomarkers to assess graft injury after liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2022;4(3):100439.
[71]

Perottino G, Harrington C, Levitsky J. Biomarkers of rejection in liver transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2022;27(2):154–8.
[72]

Shaked A, Chang BL, Barnes MR, Sayre P, Li YR, Asare S, et al. An ectopically expressed serum miRNA signature is prognostic, diagnostic, and biologically related to liver allograft rejection. Hepatology 2017;65(1):269–80.
[73]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Germani G, Tsochatzis E, Rolando N, Luong TV, Dhillon AP, et al. Predicting severity and clinical course of acute rejection after liver transplantation using blood eosinophil count. Transpl Int 2012;25 (5):555–63.
[74]

Trull A, Steel L, Cornelissen J, Smith T, Sharples L, Cary N, et al. Association between blood eosinophil counts and acute cardiac and pulmonary allograft rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 1998;17(5):517–24.
[75]

Trull AK, Steel LA, Sharples LD, Akhlaghi F, Parameshwar J, Cary N, et al. Randomized trial of blood eosinophil count monitoring as a guide to corticosteroid dosage adjustment after heart transplantation. Transplantation 2000;70(5):802–9.
[76]

Hughes VF, Trull AK, Joshi O, Alexander GJ. Monitoring eosinophil activation and liver function after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1998;65 (10):1334–9.
[77]

McCaughan GW, Herkes R, Powers B, Rickard K, Gallagher ND, Thompson JF, et al. Thrombocytopenia post liver transplantation. Correlations with preoperative platelet count, blood transfusion requirements, allograft function and outcome. J Hepatol 1992;16(1-2):16–22.
[78]

Chatzipetrou MA, Tsaroucha AK, Weppler D, Pappas PA, Kenyon NS, Nery JR, et al. Thrombocytopenia after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1999;67 (5):702–6.
[79]

Lesurtel M, Raptis DA, Melloul E, Schlegel A, Oberkofler C, El-Badry AM, et al. Low platelet counts after liver transplantation predict early posttransplant survival: the 60-5 criterion. Liver Transpl 2014;20(2):147–55.
[80]

Yamakuchi M, Kirkiles-Smith NC, Ferlito M, Cameron SJ, Bao C, Fox-Talbot K, et al. Antibody to human leukocyte antigen triggers endothelial exocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104(4):1301–6.
[81]

Ekser B, Gridelli B, Veroux M, Cooper DK. Clinical pig liver xenotransplantation: how far do we have to go? Xenotransplantation 2011;18(3):158–67.
[82]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Germani G, Darius T, Lerut J, Tsochatzis E, Burroughs AK. Tacrolimus trough levels, rejection and renal impairment in liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Transplant 2012;12(10):2797–814.
[83]

Saliba F, Duvoux C, Gugenheim J, Kamar N, Dharancy S, Salamé E, et al. Efficacy and safety of everolimus and mycophenolic acid with early tacrolimus withdrawal after liver transplantation: a multicenter randomized trial. Am J Transplant 2017;17(7):1843–52.
[84]

Kwong AJ, Kim WR, Lake JR, Smith JM, Schladt DP, Skeans MA, et al. OPTN/ SRTR 2019 annual data report: liver. Am J Transplant 2021;21(Suppl 2):208–315.
[85]

Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, Vítko Š, Nashan B, Gürkan A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007;357(25):2562–75.
[86]

Kwong AJ, Ebel NH, Kim WR, Lake JR, Smith JM, Schladt DP, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2020 annual data report: liver. Am J Transplant 2022;22(Suppl 2):204–309.
[87]

Neuberger JM, Bechstein WO, Kuypers DR, Burra P, Citterio F, De Geest S, et al. Practical recommendations for long-term management of modifiable risks in kidney and liver transplant recipients: a guidance report and clinical checklist by the Consensus On Managing Modifiable risk In Transplantation (COMMIT) group. Transplantation 2017;101(4S Suppl 2):S1–56.
[88]

Klintmalm GB, Feng S, Lake JR, Vargas HE, Wekerle T, Agnes S, et al. Belatacept-based immunosuppression in de novo liver transplant recipients: 1-year experience from a phase II randomized study. Am J Transplant 2014;14(8):1817–27.
[89]

Watt KDS, Pedersen RA, Kremers WK, Heimbach JK, Charlton MR. Evolution of causes and risk factors for mortality post-liver transplant: results of the NIDDK long-term follow-up study. Am J Transplant 2010;10(6):1420–7.
[90]

Padbury RT, Gunson BK, Dousset B, Hubscher SG, Buckels JA, Neuberger JM, et al. Steroid withdrawal from long-term immunosuppression in liver allograft recipients. Transplantation 1993;55(4):789–94.
[91]

Goralczyk AD, Hauke N, Bari N, Tsui TY, Lorf T, Obed A. Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and metaanalysis of controlled studies. Hepatology 2011;54(2):541–54.
[92]

Ali H, Mohamed MM, Sharma A, Fulop T, Halawa A. Outcomes of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction therapy in standard-risk renal transplant recipients maintained on tacrolimus: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Nephrol 2021;52(4):279–91.
[93]

Germani G, Pleguezuelo M, Villamil F, Vaghjiani S, Tsochatzis E, Andreana L, et al. Azathioprine in liver transplantation: a reevaluation of its use and a comparison with mycophenolate mofetil. Am J Transplant 2009;9 (8):1725–31.
[94]

Björnsson ES, Gu J, Kleiner DE, Chalasani N, Hayashi PH, Hoofnagle JH, et al. Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine-induced liver injury: clinical features and outcomes. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017;51(1):63–9.
[95]

Meijer B, Simsek M, Blokzijl H, de Man RA, Coenraad MJ, Dijkstra G, et al. Nodular regenerative hyperplasia rarely leads to liver transplantation: a 20- year cohort study in all Dutch liver transplant units. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5(5):658–67.
[96]

Ruggenenti P, Cravedi P, Gotti E, Plati A, Marasà M, Sandrini S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine immunosuppression (ATHENA): a pragmatic randomized trial. PLoS Med 2021;18(6):e1003668.
[97]

De Simone P, Nevens F, De Carlis L, Metselaar HJ, Beckebaum S, Saliba F, et al. Everolimus with reduced tacrolimus improves renal function in de novo liver transplant recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant 2012;12 (11):3008–20.
[98]

Geissler EK, Schnitzbauer AA, Zülke C, Lamby PE, Proneth A, Duvoux C, et al. Sirolimus use in liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial. Transplantation 2016;100 (1):116–25.
[99]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Colmenero J, González A, Gastaca M, Curell A, Caballero-Marcos A, et al. Cumulative exposure to tacrolimus and incidence of cancer after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2022;22 (6):1671–82.
[100]

Di Maira T, Sapisochin G, Lilly L, Fonés V, Berenguer M. Posttransplant calcineurin inhibitors levels and intrapatient variability are not associated with long-term outcomes following liver transplantation. Transplantation 2020;104(6):1201–9.
[101]

Schumacher L, Leino AD, Park JM. Tacrolimus intrapatient variability in solid organ transplantation: a multiorgan perspective. Pharmacotherapy 2021;41 (1):103–18.
[102]

Schmeding M, Neumann UP, Neuhaus R, Neuhaus P. Mycophenolate mofetil in liver transplantation—is monotherapy safe? Clin Transplant 2006;20 (Suppl 17):75–9.
[103]

Vivarelli M, Dazzi A, Zanello M, Cucchetti A, Cescon M, Ravaioli M, et al. Effect of different immunosuppressive schedules on recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transplantation 2010;89 (2):227–31.
[104]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Tsochatzis E, Naveas MC, Pieri G, García-Caparrós C, O’Beirne J, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors early after liver transplantation prevents recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2013;59(6):1193–9.
[105]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, De la Mata M, Burroughs AK. Liver transplantation: immunosuppression and oncology. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2014;19 (3):253–60.
[106]

Lerut J, Iesari S, Foguenne M, Lai Q. Hepatocellular cancer and recurrence after liver transplantation: what about the impact of immunosuppression? Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2(10):80.
[107]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Guerrero M, De Luca L, Gros B, Thorburn D, Patch D, et al. Area under trough concentrations of tacrolimus as a predictor of progressive renal impairment after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2019;103(12):2539–48.
[108]

Coilly A, Calmus Y, Chermak F, Dumortier J, Duvoux C, Guillaud O, et al. Oncedaily prolonged release tacrolimus in liver transplantation: experts’ literature review and recommendations. Liver Transpl 2015;21(10):1312–21.
[109]

Weiler N, Thrun I, Hoppe-Lotichius M, Zimmermann T, Kraemer I, Otto G. Early steroid-free immunosuppression with FK506 after liver transplantation: long-term results of a prospectively randomized doubleblinded trial. Transplantation 2010;90(12):1562–6.
[110]

Baroja-Mazo A, Revilla-Nuin B, Parrilla P, Martínez-Alarcón L, Ramírez P, Pons JA. Tolerance in liver transplantation: biomarkers and clinical relevance. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22(34):7676–91.
[111]

Benítez CE, Puig-Pey I, López M, Martínez-Llordella M, Lozano JJ, Bohne F, et al. ATG-Fresenius treatment and low-dose tacrolimus: results of a randomized controlled trial in liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2010;10(10):2296–304.
[112]

Neuberger J, Gunson B, Hubscher S, Nightingale P. Immunosuppression affects the rate of recurrent primary biliary cirrhosis after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004;10(4):488–91.
[113]

Berenguer M, Aguilera V, Prieto M, San Juan F, Rayón JM, Benlloch S, et al. Significant improvement in the outcome of HCV-infected transplant recipients by avoiding rapid steroid tapering and potent induction immunosuppression. J Hepatol 2006;44(4):717–22.
[114]

Berenguer M, Royuela A, Zamora J. Immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors with respect to the outcome of HCV recurrence after liver transplantation: results of a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl 2007;13(1):21–9.
[115]

Lerut J, Foguenne M, Lai Q. Hepatocellular cancer selection systems and liver transplantation: from the tower of babel to an ideal comprehensive score. Updates Surg 2021;73(5):1599–614.
[116]

Lerut J, Iesari S, Vandeplas G, Fabbrizio T, Ackenine K, Núñez MEI, et al. Secondary non-resectable liver tumors: a single-center living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation case series. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2019;18(5):412–22.
[117]

O’Leary JG, Demetris AJ, Friedman LS, Gebel HM, Halloran PF, Kirk AD, et al. The role of donor-specific HLA alloantibodies in liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2014;14(4):779–87.
[118]

Jucaud V, Shaked A, DesMarais M, Sayre P, Feng S, Levitsky J, et al. Prevalence and impact of de novo donor-specific antibodies during a multicenter immunosuppression withdrawal trial in adult liver transplant recipients. Hepatology 2019;69(3):1273–86.
[119]

Kasiske BL, Vazquez MA, Harmon WE, Brown RS, Danovitch GM, Gaston RS, et al. Recommendations for the outpatient surveillance of renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11(Suppl 15):S1–S86.
[120]

Capron A, Lerut J, Verbaandert C, Mathys J, Ciccarelli O, Vanbinst R, et al. Validation of a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric assay for tacrolimus in liver biopsies after hepatic transplantation: correlation with histopathologic staging of rejection. Ther Drug Monit 2007;29(3):340–8.
[121]

Capron A, Lerut J, Latinne D, Rahier J, Haufroid V, Wallemacq P. Correlation of tacrolimus levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells with histological staging of rejection after liver transplantation: preliminary results of a prospective study. Transpl Int 2012;25(1):41–7.
[122]

Feng S, Bucuvalas JC, Demetris AJ, Burrell BE, Spain KM, Kanaparthi S, et al. Evidence of chronic allograft injury in liver biopsies from long-term pediatric recipients of liver transplants. Gastroenterology 2018;155(6):1838-51.e7.
[123]

Feng S, Ekong UD, Lobritto SJ, Demetris AJ, Roberts JP, Rosenthal P, et al. Complete immunosuppression withdrawal and subsequent allograft function among pediatric recipients of parental living donor liver transplants. JAMA 2012;307(3):283–93.
[124]

Benítez C, Londoño MC, Miquel R, Manzia TM, Abraldes JG, Lozano JJ, et al. Prospective multicenter clinical trial of immunosuppressive drug withdrawal in stable adult liver transplant recipients. Hepatology 2013;58(5):1824–35.
[125]

Todo S, Yamashita K, Goto R, Zaitsu M, Nagatsu A, Oura T, et al. A pilot study of operational tolerance with a regulatory T-cell-based cell therapy in living donor liver transplantation. Hepatology 2016;64(2):632–43.
[126]

Sánchez-Fueyo A, Whitehouse G, Grageda N, Cramp ME, Lim TY, Romano M, et al. Applicability, safety, and biological activity of regulatory T cell therapy in liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2020;20(4):1125–36.
[127]

Lascaris B, de Meijer VE, Porte RJ. Normothermic liver machine perfusion as a dynamic platform for regenerative purposes: what does the future have in store for us? J Hepatol 2022;6:S0168-8278(22)00269-0.
[128]

Sawitzki B, Harden PN, Reinke P, Moreau A, Hutchinson JA, Game DS, et al. Regulatory cell therapy in kidney transplantation (the ONE Study): a harmonised design and analysis of seven non-randomised, single-arm, phase 1/2A trials. Lancet 2020;395(10237):1627–39.
[129]

Jhun J, Lee SH, Lee SK, Kim HY, Jung ES, Kim DG, et al. Serial monitoring of immune markers being represented regulatory T cell/T helper 17 cell ratio: indicating tolerance for tapering immunosuppression after liver transplantation. Front Immunol 2018;9:352.
[130]

Ronca V, Wootton G, Milani C, Cain O. The immunological basis of liver allograft rejection. Front Immunol 2020;11:2155.
[131]

Chruscinski A, Rojas-Luengas V, Moshkelgosha S, Issachar A, Luo J, Yowanto H, et al. Evaluation of a gene expression biomarker to identify operationally tolerant liver transplant recipients: the LITMUS trial. Clin Exp Immunol 2022;207(1):123–39.
[132]

Lerut J, Van Thuyne V, Mathijs J, Lemaire J, Talpe S, Roggen F, et al. Anti-CD2 monoclonal antibody and tacrolimus in adult liver transplantation. Transplantation 2005;80(9):1186–93.
[133]

Langley RG, Papp K, Bissonnette R, Toth D, Matheson R, Hultquist M, et al. Safety profile of intravenous and subcutaneous siplizumab, an anti-CD2 monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Int J Dermatol 2010;49(7):818–28.
[134]

Thomson AW, Vionnet J, Sanchez-Fueyo A. Understanding, predicting and achieving liver transplant tolerance: from bench to bedside. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;17(12):719–39.
[135]

Charlton M, Levitsky J, Aqel B, O’Grady J, Hemibach J, RinellaM, et al. International liver transplantation society consensus statement on immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2018;102(5):727–43.
[136]

O’Connell PJ, Kuypers DR, Mannon RB, Abecassis M, Chadban SJ, Gill JS, et al. Clinical trials for immunosuppression in transplantation: the case for reform and change in direction. Transplantation 2017;101(7):1527–34.
[137]

Fairfield CJ, Harrison EM, Wigmore SJ. Duplicate publication bias weakens the validity of meta-analysis of immunosuppression after transplantation. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23(39):7198–200.
[138]

Schafer DF, Sorrell MF. Optimising immunosuppression. Lancet 2002;360 (9340):1114–5.
[139]

Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated standards of reporting trials. JAMA 1998;279(18):1489–91.
[140]

Smedman TM, Guren TK, Line PD, Dueland S. Transplant oncology: assessment of response and tolerance to systemic chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer after liver transplantation—a retrospective study. Transpl Int 2019;32(11):1144–50.

Funding

()

PDF (1356KB)

8353

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail
Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉