Performance of pre-transplant criteria in prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma progression and waitlist dropout.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Liver transplantation (LT) selection models for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have not been proposed to predict waitlist dropout because of tumour progression. The aim of this study was to compare the alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) model and other pre-LT models in their prediction of HCC dropout. METHODS: A multicentre cohort study was conducted in 20 Latin American transplant centres, including 994 listed patients for LT with HCC from 2012 to 2018. Longitudinal tumour characteristics, and patterns of progression were recorded at time of listing, after treatments and at last follow-up over the waitlist period. Competing risk regression models were performed, and model's discrimination was compared estimating Harrell's adapted c-statistics. RESULTS: HCC dropout rate was significantly higher in patients beyond (24% [95% CI 16-28]) compared to those within Milan criteria (8% [95% IC 5%-12%]; p < .0001), with a SHR of 3.01 [95% CI 2.03-4.47]), adjusted for waiting list time and bridging therapies (c-index 0.63 [95% CI 0.57; 0.69). HCC dropout rates were higher in patients with AFP scores >2 (adjusted SHR of 3.17 [CI 2.13-4.71]), c-index of 0.71 (95% CI 0.65-0.77; p = .09 vs Milan). Similar discrimination power for HCC dropout was observed between the AFP score and the Metroticket 2.0 model. In patients within Milan, an AFP score >2 points discriminated two populations with a higher risk of HCC dropout (SHR 1.68 [95% CI 1.08-2.61]). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-transplant selection models similarly predicted HCC dropout. However, the AFP model can discriminate a higher risk of dropout among patients within Milan criteria.

Availability of PEth testing is associated with reduced eligibility for liver transplant among patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Serum phosphatidylethanol (PEth) is a highly sensitive test to detect alcohol use. We evaluated whether the availability of PEth testing impacted rates of liver transplant evaluation terminations and delistings. METHODS: Medical record data were collected for patients who initiated transplant evaluation due to alcohol-related liver disease in the pre-PEth (2017) or PEth (2019) eras. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes included termination of evaluation or delisting due to alcohol use; patients were censored at receipt of transplant; death was considered a competing risk. The Fine-Gray method was performed to determine whether PEth testing affected risk of evaluation termination/ delisting due to alcohol use. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-five patients with alcohol-related indications for transplant (157 in 2017; 210 in 2019) were included. The final IPW-adjusted model for the composite outcome of terminations/delisting due to alcohol use retained two significant variables (P < .05): PEth era and BMI category. Patients evaluated during the PEth era were almost three times more likely to experience an alcohol-related termination/delisting than those in the pre-PEth era (sHR = 2.86; 95%CI 1.67-4.97) CONCLUSION: We found that availability of PEth testing at our institution was associated with a higher rate of exclusion of patients from eligibility for liver transplant. Use of PEth testing has significant potential to inform decisions regarding transplant candidacy for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

A notable proportion of liver transplant candidates with alcohol-related cirrhosis can be delisted because of clinical improvement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To what extent patients with alcohol-related decompensated cirrhosis can improve until recovery from decompensation remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the probability of recovery and delisting due to improvement in patients with alcohol-related decompensated cirrhosis on the waiting list (WL) for liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: We conducted a registry-based, multicenter, retrospective study including all patients admitted to the LT WL in Catalonia (Spain) with the indication of alcohol-, HCV-, cholestasis- or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis-related decompensated cirrhosis between January 2007 and December 2018. Competing-risk analysis was used to investigate variables associated with delisting due to improvement in patients with alcohol-related decompensated cirrhosis. Criteria for delisting after improvement were not predefined. Outcomes of patients after delisting were also studied. RESULTS: One-thousand and one patients were included, 420 (37%) with alcohol-related decompensated cirrhosis. Thirty-six (8.6%) patients with alcohol-related decompensated cirrhosis were delisted after improvement at a median time of 29 months after WL admission. Lower model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, higher platelets and either female sex or lower height were independently associated with delisting due to improvement, while time of abstinence did not reach statistical significance in multivariate analysis (p = 0.055). Five years after delisting, the cumulative probability of remaining free from liver-related death or LT was 76%, similar to patients with HCV-related decompensated cirrhosis delisted after improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of LT candidates with alcohol-related cirrhosis can be delisted due to improvement, which is predicted by low MELD score and higher platelet count at WL admission. Women also have a higher probability of being delisted after improvement, partially due to reduced early access to LT for height discrepancies. Early identification of patients with potential for improvement may avoid unnecessary transplants. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis can improve until being delisted in approximately 9% of cases. Low model for end-stage liver disease score and high platelet levels at admission predict delisting after improvement, and women have higher probabilities of being delisted due to improvement. Long-term outcomes after delisting are generally favorable.

Wait expectations: The impact of delisting as an outcome from the kidney transplant waitlist.

BACKGROUND: While kidney transplantation is optimal for the treatment of end-stage kidney disease, available organs do not meet demand. Little is known about the outcomes of patients who are delisted (removed from the waitlist) and unable to benefit from transplant. We describe patients who are delisted and their life expectancy after delisting. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years listed for deceased donor kidney transplant between 01/2003 and 12/2013 were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and followed through 12/2018. A competing risk model was used to measure the association of demographic and clinical factors with waitlist outcomes of delisting, transplant, and death. Multivariate Cox modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with death after delisting. RESULTS: Of 324,582 patients listed, 18.0% were delisted, most common reasons were "too sick" or "other." After delisting, half (49.7%) had died by end of follow-up; time to death after removal was 5 years. Increasing age and public insurance were associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five patients will be delisted from the kidney transplant waitlist. These patients live a surprisingly long time after removal. Much remains unknown about these patients, which could be improved through data collection. Delisting is an important patient outcome that warrants further exploration.

Physical Performance Testing in Kidney Transplant Candidates at the Top of the Waitlist.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Frailty and poor physical function are associated with adverse kidney transplant outcomes, but how to incorporate this knowledge into clinical practice is uncertain. We studied the association between measured physical performance and clinical outcomes among patients on kidney transplant waitlists. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We studied consecutive patients evaluated in our Transplant Readiness Assessment Clinic, a top-of-the-waitlist management program, from May 2017 through December 2018 (N=305). We incorporated physical performance testing, including the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and the sit-to-stand (STS) test, into routine clinical assessments. EXPOSURES: 6MWT and STS test results. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was time to adverse waitlist outcomes (removal from waitlist or death); secondary outcomes were time to transplantation and time to death. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We used linear regression to examine the relationship between clinical characteristics and physical performance test results. We used subdistribution hazards models to examine the association between physical performance test results and outcomes. RESULTS: Median 6MWT and STS results were 393 (IQR, 305-455) m and 17 (IQR, 12-21) repetitions, respectively. Clinical characteristics and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival scores accounted for only 14% to 21% of the variance in 6MWT/STS results. Physical performance test results were associated with adverse waitlist outcomes (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] of 1.42 [95% CI, 1.30-1.56] per 50-m lower 6MWT test result and 1.53 [95% CI, 1.33-1.75] per 5-repetition lower STS test result) and with transplantation (adjusted sHR of 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.88] per 50-m lower 6MWT test result and 0.80 [95% CI, 0.71-0.89] per 5-repetition lower STS test result). Addition of either STS or 6MWT to survival models containing clinical characteristics enhanced fit (likelihood ratio test P<0.001). LIMITATIONS: Single-center observational study. Other measures of global health status (eg, Fried Frailty Index or Short Physical Performance Battery) were not examined. CONCLUSIONS: Among waitlisted kidney transplant candidates with high kidney allocation scores, standardized and easily performed physical performance test results are associated with waitlist outcomes and contain information beyond what is currently routinely collected in clinical practice.

Association of Karnofsky Performance Status with waitlist mortality among older and younger adults awaiting kidney transplantation.

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have impaired functional status compared with the general population. We sought to explore the association between Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and death/delisting from the kidney transplantation waitlist and whether this association differed by age. Patients listed for single-organ kidney transplantation in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2018, were included. We performed competing-risk regression analyses to determine the association between KPS ("Severely impaired", "Moderately impaired", "Non-impaired") and death/delisting, with deceased-donor kidney transplantation as a competing risk. We tested for interactions between age and KPS on death/delisting. Of the 89,819 patients analyzed, 39% were impaired (KPS < 80) and 20% were aged ≥ 65 years. Older age and lower KPS were independently associated with higher risk of death/delisting (age 45-64 years, HR 1.97 [95% CI 1.73-2.24]; age ≥ 65 years, HR 3.62 [95% CI 3.33-3.92] compared with age < 45 years; moderately impaired, HR 1.68 [95% CI 1.45-1.95]; severely impaired, HR 4.80 [95% CI 3.71-6.21] compared with non-impaired). Lower KPS was associated with higher risk of death/delisting among all ages, but this effect was slightly less pronounced among individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Performance status should be used when counseling patients with ESRD on their risks for death/delisting.

Mortality and Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Among Hepatitis C Virus-Seropositive Maintenance Dialysis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common among maintenance dialysis patients. Few studies have examined both dialysis survival and transplantation outcomes for HCV-seropositive patients because registry data sets lack information for HCV serostatus. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult long-term dialysis patients treated by a US national dialysis provider between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2014. EXPOSURE: HCV antibody serostatus obtained as part of clinical data from a national dialysis provider. OUTCOMES: Mortality on dialysis therapy, entry onto the kidney transplant waiting list, kidney transplantation, and estimated survival benefit from kidney transplantation versus remaining on the waitlist. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: After linking clinical data with data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Cox and cause-specific hazards regression were implemented to estimate the associations between HCV seropositivity and mortality, as well as entry onto the kidney transplant waitlist. Cox regression was also used to estimate the survival benefit from transplantation versus dialysis among HCV-seropositive individuals. RESULTS: Among 442,171 dialysis patients, 31,624 (7.2%) were HCV seropositive. HCV seropositivity was associated with a small elevation in the rate of death (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11) and a substantially lower rate of entry onto the kidney transplant waitlist (subdistribution HR [sHR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.74). Once wait-listed, the kidney transplantation rate was not different for HCV-seropositive (sHR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.27) versus HCV-seronegative patients. HCV-seropositive patients lived longer with transplantation (aHR at 3 years, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63). Receiving an HCV-seropositive donor kidney provided a survival advantage at the 2-year posttransplantation time point compared to remaining on dialysis therapy waiting for an HCV-negative kidney. LIMITATIONS: No data for HCV viral load or liver biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: HCV-seropositive patients experience reduced access to the kidney transplantation waitlist despite deriving a substantial survival benefit from transplantation. HCV-seropositive patients should consider foregoing HCV treatment while accepting kidneys from HCV-infected donors to facilitate transplantation and prolong survival.

Impact of delisting high-strength opioid formulations from a public drug benefit formulary on opioid utilization in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: High-strength opioid formulations were delisted (removed) from Ontario's public drug formulary in January 2017, except for palliative patients. We evaluated the impact of this policy on opioid utilization and dosing. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study among patients receiving publicly funded, high-strength opioids from August 2016 to July 2017. The primary outcome measure was weekly median daily opioid dose (in milligrams of morphine or equivalent; MME) of (1) publicly funded and (2) all opioid prescriptions irrespective of funding source, evaluated using interrupted time series analyses and stratified by palliative care status. RESULTS: Following policy implementation, the weekly median daily dose of publicly funded opioids decreased immediately among non-palliative patients by 10 MME (95% confidence limit [CL], -16.8 to -3.1) from a pre-intervention dose of 424.5 MME (95% CL, 417.8-431.2) and fell gradually among palliative patients by 3.9 MME per week (95% CL, -5.5 to -2.3) from a pre-intervention dose of 450.1 MME (95% CL, 432.5-467.7). In contrast, among all opioid prescriptions, gradual reductions in weekly median daily doses were observed only for non-palliative patients, which decreased by 0.7 MME per week (95% CL, -1.3 to -0.2) from a pre-intervention dose of 426.2 MME (95% CL, 420.9-431.5). CONCLUSION: The delisting of publicly-funded, high-strength opioids was accompanied by changes in funding source and small reductions in the weekly median daily doses dispensed. Although observed dose reductions of less than 1 MME weekly are likely not clinically relevant, safety implications of these changes require further monitoring.

Delisting HCV-infected liver transplant candidates who improved after viral eradication: Outcome 2 years after delisting.

BACKGROUNDS & AIMS: Treating patients with decompensated cirrhosis with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy while on the waiting list for liver transplantation results in substantial improvement of liver function allowing 1 in 4 patients to be removed from the waiting list or delisted, as reported in a previous study promoted by the European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association (ELITA). The aim of this study was to report on clinical outcomes of delisted patients, including mortality risk, hepatocellular carcinoma development and clinical decompensation requiring relisting. METHODS: One hundred and forty-two HCV-positive patients on the liver transplant waiting list for decompensated cirrhosis, negative for hepatocellular carcinoma, between February 2014 and June 2015 were treated with DAA therapy and were prospectively followed up. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (30.9%) were delisted following clinical improvement. This percentage was higher than in the original study because of a number of patients being delisted long after starting DAAs. The median Child-Pugh and MELD score of delisted patients was 5.5 and 9 respectively. Four patients were relisted, because of HCC diagnosis in 1 case and 3 patients developed ascites. One further patient died (2.4%) because of rapidly progressing hepatocellular carcinoma twenty-two months after delisting. Of the 70 patients who received a liver graft, 9 died (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral therapy allows for a long-term improvement of liver function and the delisting of one-third of treated patients with risk of liver-related complications after delisting being very low.

The Italian compassionate use of sofosbuvir in HCV patients waitlisted for liver transplantation: A national real-life experience.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study aimed to assess the real-life clinical and virological outcomes of HCV waitlisted patients for liver transplantation (LT) who received sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/R) within the Italian compassionate use program. METHODS: Clinical and virological data were collected in 224 patients with decompensated cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving daily SOF/R until LT or up a maximum of 48 weeks. RESULTS: Of 100 transplanted patients, 51 were HCV-RNA negative for >4 weeks before LT (SVR12: 88%) and 49 negative for <4 weeks or still viraemic at transplant: 34 patients continued treatment after LT (bridging therapy) (SVR12: 88%), while 15 stopped treatment (SVR12: 53%). 98 patients completed SOF/R without LT (SVR12: 73%). In patients with advanced decompensated cirrhosis (basal MELD ≥15 and/or C-P ≥B8), a marked improvement of the scores occurred in about 50% of cases and almost 20% of decompensated patients without HCC reached a condition suitable for inactivation and delisting. CONCLUSIONS: These real-life data indicate that in waitlisted patients: (i) bridging antiviral therapy can be an option for patients still viraemic or negative <4 weeks at LT; and (ii) clinical improvement to a condition suitable for delisting can occur even in patients with advanced decompensated cirrhosis.

Considerations When Treating Hepatitis C in a Cirrhotic Transplant Candidate.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the issues in determining the decision to treat a HCV-positive patient who is a liver transplant (LT) candidate with highly effective and well-tolerated direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: Cure of HCV with DAA can improve liver function and allow delisting in some patients. Beyond a threshold of hepatic impairment (likely MELD score > 16 to 20), patients may experience a decline in MELD score with HCV cure without improvement in liver-related complications resulting in decreased opportunity to receive a LT. Eradicating HCV from patients who need LT regardless also deprives them of the option of receiving HCV-positive donor organs. Patients with MELD > 16 or Child-Pugh B/C may also have reduced cure rates of HCV, increased risk of hepatic decompensation, and adverse events with DAA pre-LT compared to post-LT DAA therapy. Preliminary data demonstrates increase risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after treatment with DAA with subsequent studies raising doubts about this association. Patients with HCV cirrhosis on the LT waiting list with MELD score > 16, CTP-B/C, and HCC are best treated after LT with better response, tolerability, and the ability to receive organs from a larger donor pool that includes HCV-positive donors. Larger, prospective studies are needed to assess whether increased HCC recurrence after DAA is a true effect.

Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing antiviral therapy while awaiting liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiviral therapy for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) infection has proved to be safe and efficacious in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, the information regarding the clinical impact of viral eradication in patients on the waiting list is still limited. The aim of the study was to investigate the probability of delisting in patients who underwent antiviral therapy, and the clinical outcomes of these delisted patients. METHODS: Observational, multicenter and retrospective analysis was carried out on prospectively collected data from patients positive for HCV, treated with an interferon-free regimen, while awaiting LT in 18 hospitals in Spain. RESULTS: In total, 238 patients were enrolled in the study. The indication for LT was decompensated cirrhosis (with or without hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) in 171 (72%) patients, and HCC in 67 (28%) patients. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rate was significantly higher in patients with compensated cirrhosis and HCC (92% vs. 83% in patients with decompensated cirrhosis with or without HCC, p=0.042). Among 122 patients with decompensated cirrhosis without HCC, 29 (24%) were delisted due to improvement. No patient with baseline MELD score >20 was delisted. After delisting (median follow-up of 88weeks), three patients had clinical decompensations and three had de novo HCC. Only two of the patients with HCC had to be re-admitted onto the waiting list. The remaining 23 patients remained stable, with no indication for LT. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral therapy is safe and efficacious in patients awaiting LT. A quarter of patients with decompensated cirrhosis can be delisted asa result of clinical improvement, which appears to be remain stable in most patients. Thus, delisting is a safe strategy that could spare organs and benefit other patients with a more urgent need. LAY SUMMARY: Antiviral therapy in patients awaiting liver transplantation is safe and efficacious. Viral eradication allows removal from the waiting list of a quarter of treated patients. Delisting because of clinical improvement is a safe strategy that can spare organs for patients in urgent need.

Characteristics of liver transplant candidates delisted following recompensation and predictors of such delisting in alcohol-related liver disease: a case-control study.

Whether and when recovery beyond the need for transplant may occur in patients listed for decompensation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients delisted following recompensation. Seventy-seven patients who were listed between 2005 and 2015 for decompensation, but later delisted following recompensation were included. Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) was the underlying etiology in the majority (n = 47, 61%). Listing characteristics of these patients were compared with those of decompensated ALD patients who either underwent deceased donor liver transplantation or died on the waiting list. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score <20 and serum albumin ≥32 g/l at listing were the only independent predictors of recompensation/delisting in ALD. The probability of recompensation was 70% when both factors were present at listing. Interestingly, about a tenth of decompensated ALD patients who died on the waiting list (median duration on waiting list 11 months) and a quarter of decompensated ALD patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (median duration on waiting list 2 months) also had both factors at listing. In conclusion, ALD seems to be the most favorable etiology for recompensation beyond the need for transplantation. Both MELD and serum albumin at listing independently predict recompensation/delisting in ALD. It seems advisable to implement a period of observation for ALD patients with both favorable factors, before embarking on living donor liver transplantation.

Delisting of liver transplant candidates with chronic hepatitis C after viral eradication: A European study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: All oral direct acting antivirals (DAA) have been shown to improve the liver function of patients with decompensated cirrhosis but it is presently unknown whether this clinical improvement may lead to the delisting of some patients. The aim of this study was to assess if and which patients can be first inactivated due to clinically improvement and subsequently delisted in a real life setting. METHODS: 103 consecutive listed patients without hepatocellular carcinoma were treated with different DAA combinations in 11 European centres between February 2014 and February 2015. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of inactivated and delisted patients by competing risk analysis was 15.5% and 0% at 24weeks, 27.6% and 10.3% at 48weeks, 33.3% and 19.2% at 60weeks. The 34 patients who were inactivated showed a median improvement of 3.4 points for MELD (delta MELD, p<0.0001) and 2 points for Child-Pugh (CP) (delta-CP, p<0.0001). Three variables emerged from the most parsimonious multivariate competing risk model as predictors of inactivation for clinical improvement, namely, baseline MELD classes (MELD 16-20: HR=0.120; p=0.0005, MELD >20:HR=0.042; p<0.0001), delta MELD (HR=1.349; p<0.0001) and delta albumin (HR=0.307; p=0.0069) both assessed after 12weeks of DAA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that all oral DAAs were able to reverse liver dysfunction and favoured the inactivation and delisting of about one patient out-of-three and one patient out-of-five in 60weeks, respectively. Patients with lower MELD scores had higher chances to be delisted. The longer term benefits of therapy need to be ascertained. LAY SUMMARY: The excellent efficacy and safety profile of the new drugs against Hepatitis C virus, "direct acting antivirals" or DAAs, have made antiviral therapy possible also for patients with advanced liver disease and for those on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT). This study shows for the first time that the DAAs may lead to a remarkable clinical improvement allowing the delisting of one patient out of 5.

Managing HBV and HCV Infection Pre- and Post-liver Transplant.

Hepatitis B and C are common causes of end-stage liver disease and etiologies of liver transplantation. It is important to prevent recurrence in cases of hepatitis B. Nucleos(t)ide analogs are the mainstay of HBV treatment before (in patients with decompensated cirrhosis) and after liver transplantation. After the introduction of direct-acting antivirals, the treatment of HCV has become considerably easy. In patients with advanced HCV-related cirrhosis, it is better to do transplantation first and treat them after liver transplantation. The sustained virological response rates have improved from 8 to 50% in the interferon era to 90% in the direct-acting antivirals era. In the current review, we discuss the treatment of HBV and HCV before and after liver transplantation.

Low-risk delisting strategy in highly sensitized patients without donor offers included in exchange donation programs. One single-center experience.

Donor exchange programs were designed to allocate organs for highly sensitized (HS) patients. The allocation algorithm differs slightly among countries and includes different strategies to improve access to transplants in HS patients. However, many HS patients with a calculated panel reactive of antibodies (cPRA) of 100 % remain on the waiting list for a long time. Some allocation algorithms assume immunological risk, including Imlifidase treatment, to increase the chance of transplantation in very HS patients. Here, we describe our unicenter experience of low-risk delisting strategy in 15 HS patients included in the Spanish donor exchange program without donor offers. After delisting, 7 out of 15 HS patients reduced the cPRA below 99.95 % and impacted the reduction of time on the waiting list (p = 0.01), where 5 out of 7 achieved transplantation. Within those HS that remained above 99.95 %, 1 out of 8 was transplanted. All the HS were transplanted with delisted DSA, and only one with DSA level rebounded early after transplantation. All HS transplanted after delisting maintain graft function. The transplant immunology laboratories are challenged to search intermediate risk assessment methods for delisting high HS patients.

A personalised delisting strategy enables successful kidney transplantation in highly sensitised patients with preformed donor-specific anti HLA antibodies.

This study investigates kidney transplant outcomes in highly sensitised patients after implementing a delisting strategy aimed at enabling transplantation despite preformed donor-specific antibodies (preDSA), with the goal of reducing acute antibody-mediated rejection (aAMR) risk. Fifty-three sensitised recipients underwent kidney transplant after delisting prohibited HLA antigens, focusing initially in low MFI antibodies (<5000), except for anti-HLA-DQ. If insufficient, higher MFI antibodies were permitted, especially for those without an immunogenic eplet pattern assigned. Delisting of Complement-fixing antibodies (C1q+) was consistently avoided. Comparison cohorts included 53 sensitised recipients without DSA (SwoDSA) and 53 non-sensitised (NS). The average waiting time prior to delisting was 4.4 ± 1.8 years, with a reduction in cPRA from 99.7 ± 0.5 to 98.1 ± 0.7, followed by transplantation within 7.2 ± 8.0 months (analysed in 34 patients). Rejection rates were similar among preDSA, SwoDSA, and NS groups (16%, 8%, and 11%, respectively; p = 0.46). However, aAMR was higher in the preDSA group (12%, 4%, and 2%, respectively; p = 0.073), only presented in recipients with DSA of MFI >5000. The highest MFI DSA were against HLA-DP (Median: 10796 MFI), with 50% of preDSA aAMR cases due to anti-DP antibodies (n = 3). Graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years in preDSA group were 94%, and 67%, comparable to SwoDSA (94%, and 70%; p = 0.69), being significantly higher in the NS group (p = 0.002). The five-year recipient survival rate was 89%, comparable to SwoDSA and NS groups (p = 0.79). A delisting strategy enables safe kidney transplant in highly sensitised patients with preDSA, with a slight increase in aAMR and comparable graft and patient survivals to non-DSA cohorts.

Frequent Follow-Up of Delisted Liver Transplant Candidates Is Necessary: An Observational Study about Characteristics and Outcomes of Delisted Liver Transplant Candidates.

This observational study focuses on the characteristics and survival of patients taken off of the liver transplant waiting list. Assessment of post-delisting survival and a frequent follow-up of patients after delisting are important keys to improve the survival rate of patients with liver failure after being delisted. Within this study, delisted liver transplant candidates were divided into the following groups: (1) "too good" (54%) or (2) "too sick" (22%) for transplantation, (3) adherence issues (12%) or (4) therapy goal changed (11%). The 5-year survival after delisting within these groups was 84%, 9%, 50%, and 68%, respectively. Less than 3% of the delisted patients had to be relisted again. The clinical expert decision of the multidisciplinary transplant team was sufficiently accurate to differentiate between patients requiring liver transplantation and those who were delisted after a stable recovery of liver function. The assessment of post-delisting survival may serve as a complementary metric to assess differences in center practices and to estimate cumulative post-delisting mortality risk.

Evaluating the early impacts of delisting high-strength opioids on patterns of prescribing in Ontario. / Évaluation des premiers effets du retrait des opioïdes à forte concentration sur les schémas de prescription en Ontario.

INTRODUCTION: Ontario delisted high-strength fentanyl, hydromorphone and morphine from the public drug formulary for non-palliative care prescribers on 31 January, 2017. Our aim is to assess the early impact of this policy on prescribing patterns and to examine whether this impact varied by prescriber type, opioid type and opioid strength. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study on palliative and non-palliative care patients dispensed fentanyl, hydromorphone or morphine through the Ontario public drug program between 1 January, 2014, and 31 July, 2017. For each month during the study period, we reported the total number of high-strength opioid recipients stratified by prescriber type, and the total volume of each drug dispensed, stratified by strength. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to assess the policy's impact on prescribing patterns. RESULTS: We observed a 98% decrease in the total number of publicly funded recipients of high-strength opioids between December 2016 and July 2017 (5930 to 133 recipients) for all prescribers. The policy led to a significant decline in the total volume of all three opioids dispensed: hydromorphone from 20 374 621 to 16 952 097 mg (p < .01); morphine from 40 644 190 to 33 555 480 mg (p < .03); and fentanyl from 9 604 913 to 5 842 405 mcg/h (p < .01). For both fentanyl and hydromorphone, this reduction generally corresponded to an increase in the number of low-strength opioids dispensed. CONCLUSION: Delisting high-strength opioids substantially reduced the number of highstrength opioid recipients and reduced the overall volume of long-acting opioids dispensed in Ontario through the public drug program. Future studies should examine its impact on patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Le 31 janvier 2017, l'Ontario a retiré le fentanyl, l'hydromorphone et la morphine à forte concentration des médicaments remboursables par les programmes publics de médicaments s'ils sont prescrits par des médecins en soins non palliatifs. Nous avons voulu évaluer les premiers effets de cette politique sur les schémas de prescription et déterminer si ces effets variaient en fonction du type de prescripteur ainsi que du type d'opioïdes et de leur concentration. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons mené une étude transversale représentative de la population auprès de patients nécessitant des soins palliatifs et des soins non palliatifs à qui du fentanyl, de l'hydromorphone ou de la morphine couverts par les programmes publics de médicaments de l'Ontario avaient été prescrits entre le 1er janvier 2014 et le 31 juillet 2017. Pour chacun des mois de la période à l'étude, nous avons calculé le nombre total de patients ayant reçu des opioïdes à forte concentration (réparti par type de prescripteurs) ainsi que le volume total de chaque médicament délivré (réparti par concentration). Nous avons utilisé des modèles autorégressifs à moyennes mobiles intégrés (ARMMI) interventionnels pour évaluer les effets des changements apportés par la politique sur les habitudes de prescription. RÉSULTATS: Entre décembre 2016 et juillet 2017, le nombre total de patients ayant reçu des opioïdes à forte concentration remboursés par le régime public a diminué de 98 % pour l'ensemble des prescripteurs, passant de 5 930 à 133. La nouvelle politique a entraîné une baisse substantielle du volume total des trois opioïdes délivrés, soit de 20 374 621 à 16 952 097 mg (p < 0,01) pour l'hydromorphone, de 40 644 190 à 33 555 480 mg (p < 0,03) pour la morphine et de 9 604 913 à 5 842 405 mcg/h (p < 0,01) pour le fentanyl. Dans le cas du fentanyl et de l'hydromorphone, cette diminution a dans l'ensemble coïncidé avec une augmentation du nombre d'opioïdes à faible concentration délivrés. CONCLUSION: Le retrait des opioïdes à forte concentration a sensiblement réduit le nombre de patients à qui ces médicaments ont été prescrits, ainsi que le volume total d'opioïdes à action prolongée délivrés en Ontario dans le cadre du régime public de médicaments. D'autres études devraient être menées pour en examiner les effets sur les patients.