Paradigm Shift in the Management of Irresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: Living Donor Auxiliary Partial Orthotopic Liver Transplantation in Combination With Two-stage Hepatectomy (LD-RAPID).

OBJECTIVE: to report the first case of resection and partial liver segment 2-3 transplantation with delayed total hepatectomy (RAPID) from living donor in a patient affected of irresectable colorectal liver metastases (i-CRLM) BACKGROUND:: A renaissance of liver transplantation (LT) for i-CRLM has been recently observed. The Norwegian SECA trial demonstrated a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 60%, notwithstanding early tumor recurrence. The RAPID technique was recently introduced as alternative to whole deceased donor LT, but it is limited by poor availability of splittable organs and many organisational aspects. In this context left lateral living donor LT may be the ideal solution. METHODS: Report about the technique and results of living donor RAPID procedure. TECHNIQUE: A 49 years old woman affected with i-CRLM from adenocarcinoma of right colon, underwent a left hepatectomy with ligation of right portal vein maintaining the right hepatic artery patent. Subsequently, the left lateral lobe from her son was implanted as auxiliary partial orthotopic LT. Two weeks later completion of hepatectomy was performed. RESULTS: The donor postoperative course was uneventful. The recipient developed postoperatively a slight small for size syndrome which spontaneously resolved. No graft dysfunction and no rejection were observed. At POM 5 micrometastases occurred in bones and lungs, which were treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively. Almost 2 years later the patient is alive, in good general condition, although slight progression of bone and lung metastases. CONCLUSIONS: LT poses a valid treatment option for i-CRLM. In times of organ paucity, "living donor-RAPID" procedure may represent a paradigm shift in the management of i-CRLM.

Prevention and Management of CMV Infections after Liver Transplantation: Current Practice in German Transplant Centers.

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity in human liver transplant recipients. Anti-CMV therapeutics can be used to prevent or treat CMV in liver transplant recipients, but their toxicity needs to be balanced against the benefits. The choice of prevention strategy (prophylaxis or preemptive treatment) depends on the donor/recipient sero-status but may vary between institutions. We conducted a series of consultations and roundtable discussions with German liver transplant center representatives. Based on 20 out of 22 centers, we herein summarize the current approaches to CMV prevention and treatment in the context of liver transplantation in Germany. In 90% of centers, transient prophylaxis with ganciclovir or valganciclovir was standard of care in high-risk (donor CMV positive, recipient CMV naive) settings, while preemptive therapy (based on CMV viremia detected during (bi) weekly PCR testing for circulating CMV-DNA) was preferred in moderate- and low-risk settings. Duration of prophylaxis or intense surveillance was 3-6 months. In the case of CMV infection, immunosuppression was adapted. In most centers, antiviral treatment was initiated based on PCR results (median threshold value of 1000 copies/mL) with or without symptoms. Therefore, German transplant centers report similar approaches to the prevention and management of CMV infection in liver transplantation.

The targeted oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor roflumilast and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast do not exhibit significant pharmacokinetic interactions.

This nonrandomized, fixed-sequence, 3-period study investigated potential pharmacokinetic interactions between the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast, approved for the treatment of asthma, and roflumilast, an oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor in clinical development for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pharmacokinetic interactions are of interest because both drugs may be coadministered and share a common metabolic pathway via cytochrome P450 3A. Single-dose montelukast (10 mg, po) was administered alone in period 1, followed by repeated once-daily roflumilast alone (500 microg, po) for 12 days (period 2). In period 3, 500 microg qd roflumilast was coadministered with 10 mg qd montelukast for 8 days. Different pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated for montelukast alone, for steady-state roflumilast and its pharmacologically active metabolite roflumilast N-oxide alone, for single-dose montelukast when coadministered with steady-state roflumilast, and for steady-state roflumilast and its N-oxide metabolite when coadministered with steady-state montelukast. The AUC and Cmax of montelukast were modestly increased by 9% and 8%, respectively, when single-dose montelukast was coadministered with steady-state roflumilast. The pharmacokinetics of roflumilast and roflumilast N-oxide in steady state remained unchanged when repeat-dose montelukast was coadministered at steady-state. Concomitant administration of both drugs was well tolerated. These findings suggest that no dose adjustment is warranted for either drug when roflumilast and montelukast are coadministered.

Cardiovascular effects of (R)- and (S)-verapamil and racemic verapamil in humans: a placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the comparative potency of optically pure (R)- and (S)-verapamil as regards negative dromotropic effects on atrioventricular (AV) node conduction and to compare the hemodynamic effects of single doses of the enantiomers in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers received a single oral dose of 120 mg (S)-verapamil, 480 mg (R)-verapamil, 240 mg racemic verapamil (rac-verapamil) or placebo on 4 separate occasions. Serum concentrations of (R)- and (S)-verapamil were measured up to 24 h. Cardiovascular effects were assessed by electrocardiography, measurement of blood pressure and transthoracic impedance cardiography (cardiac output and total peripheral resistance). The comparative potency of (R)- and (S)-verapamil with regard to prolongation of the PR interval in the surface ECG was estimated by use of the areas under the effect-time and serum concentration-time curves and linear regression analyses of per cent change in PR interval from baseline versus the logarithm of serum (R)- or (S)-verapamil concentration. RESULTS: The PR interval was significantly prolonged after all verapamil treatments as compared with placebo. (S)-verapamil was 20.6-21.8 times more potent than (R)-verapamil with regard to negative dromotropic effects. (R)-verapamil caused a significantly greater maximum reduction in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) than placebo [15.9+/-6.8 versus 8.7+/-3.2 mmHg (mean+/-SD); 95% CI on the difference, 0.79-13.7 mmHg; p<0.05], whereas MAP was not affected by the other verapamil treatments. No significant changes were observed in heart rate, cardiac output and total peripheral resistance after any verapamil treatment as compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: (S)-verapamil was about 20 times more potent than (R)-verapamil with regard to negative dromotropic effects on AV node conduction. (R)-verapamil but not (S)-verapamil significantly reduced the MAP as compared with placebo.