Liver Transplantation for Acute Intermittent Porphyria.

Recurrent attacks of acute intermittent porphyria (AIP) result in poor quality of life and significant risks of morbidity and mortality. Liver transplantation (LT) offers a cure, but published data on outcomes after LT are limited. We assessed the pretransplant characteristics, complications, and outcomes for patients with AIP who received a transplant. Data were collected retrospectively from the European Liver Transplant Registry and from questionnaires sent to identified transplant and porphyria centers. We studied 38 patients who received transplants in 12 countries from 2002 to 2019. Median age at LT was 37 years (range, 18-58), and 34 (89%) of the patients were women. A total of 9 patients died during follow-up, and 2 patients were retransplanted. The 1-year and 5-year overall survival rates were 92% and 82%, which are comparable with other metabolic diseases transplanted during the same period. Advanced pretransplant neurological impairment was associated with increased mortality. The 5-year survival rate was 94% among 19 patients with moderate or no neuropathy at LT and 83% among 10 patients with severe neuropathy (P = 0.04). Pretransplant renal impairment was common. A total of 19 (51%) patients had a GFR < 60 mL/minute. Although few patients improved their renal function after LT, neurological impairments improved, and no worsening of neurological symptoms was recorded. No patient had AIP attacks after LT, except for a patient who received an auxiliary graft. LT is a curative treatment option for patients with recurrent attacks of AIP. Severe neuropathy and impaired renal function are common and increase the risk for poor outcomes. If other treatment options fail, an evaluation for LT should be performed early.

Long-term outcomes of liver transplant recipients followed up in non-transplant centres: Care closer to home.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing rates of liver transplantation and improved outcomes have led to greater numbers of transplant recipients followed up in non-transplant centres. Our aim was to document long-term clinical outcomes of liver transplant recipients managed in this 'hub-and-spoke' healthcare model. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent liver transplantation between 1987 and 2016, with post-transplant follow-up in two non-transplant centres in the UK (Nottingham) and Canada (Ottawa), was performed. RESULTS: The 1-, 5-, 10- and 20-year patient survival rates were 98%, 95%, 87% and 62%, and 100%, 96%, 88% and 62% in the Nottingham and Ottawa groups, respectively (p=0.87). There were no significant differences between the two centres in 1-, 5-, 10- and 20-year cumulative incidence of death-censored graft-survival (p=0.10), end-stage renal disease (p=0.29) or de novo cancer (p=0.22). Nottingham had a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events (p=0.008). CONCLUSION: Adopting a new model of healthcare provides a means of delivering post-transplant patient care close to home without compromising patient survival and long-term clinical outcomes.