Primary biliary cholangitis drug evaluation and regulatory approval: Where do we go from here?

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease. The management landscape was transformed 20 years ago with the advent of ursodeoxycholic acid. Up to 40% of patients do not, however, respond adequately to ursodeoxycholic acid and therefore still remain at risk of disease progression to cirrhosis. The introduction of obeticholic acid as a second-line therapy for patients failing ursodeoxycholic acid has improved outcomes for patients with PBC. There remains, however, a need for better treatment for patients at higher risk. The greatest threat facing our efforts to improve treatment in PBC is, paradoxically, the regulatory approval model providing conditional marketing authorization for new drugs based on biochemical markers on the condition that long-term, randomized placebo-controlled outcome trials are performed to confirm efficacy. As demonstrated by the COBALT confirmatory study with obeticholic acid, it is difficult to retain patients in the required follow-on confirmatory placebo-controlled PBC outcome trials when a licensed drug is commercially available. New PBC therapies in development, such as the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists, face even greater challenges in demonstrating outcome benefit through randomized placebo-controlled studies once following conditional marketing authorization, as there will be even more treatment options available. A recently published EMA Reflection Paper provides some guidance on the regulatory pathway to full approval but fails to recognize the importance of real-world data in providing evidence of outcome benefit in rare diseases. Here we explore the impact of the EMA reflection paper on PBC therapy and offer pragmatic solutions for generating evidence of long-term outcomes through real-world data collection.

European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation According to Value-Based Health Care.

Liver transplantation is a highly complex, life-saving, treatment for many patients with advanced liver disease. Liver transplantation requires multidisciplinary teams, system-wide adaptations and significant investment, as well as being an expensive treatment. Several metrics have been proposed to monitor processes and outcomes, however these lack patient focus and do not capture all aspects of the process. Most of the reported outcomes do not capture those outcomes that matter to the patients. Adopting the principles of Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), may provide an opportunity to develop those metrics that matter to patients. In this article, we present a Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation following the principles of VBHC, developed by a dedicated panel of experts under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Guidelines' Taskforce. The overarching goal is to provide a framework to facilitate the development of outcome measures as an initial step to apply the VMC paradigm to liver transplantation.

Consent in organ transplantation: putting legal obligations and guidelines into practice.

Consent in medical practice is a process riddled with layers of complexities. To some extent, this is inevitable given that different medical conditions raise different sets of issues for doctors and patients. Informed consent and risk assessment are highly significant public health issues that have become even more prominent during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this article we identity relevant factors for clinicians to consider when ensuring consent for solid organ transplantation. Consent to undergo solid organ transplantation is more complex than most surgical and other clinical interventions because of the many factors involved, the complexity of the options and the need to balance competing risks. We first out the context in which consent is given by the patient. We then outline the legal principles pertaining to consent in medical practice as it applies in the UK and the implication of recent legal judgments. The third section highlights specific complexities of consent in organ transplantation and identifies relevant factors in determining consent for organ transplantation. The fourth section offers practical recommendations. We propose a novel 'multi-factor approach' to informed consent in transplantation which includes understanding risk, effective communication, and robust review processes. Whilst understanding risk and communication are a given, our suggestion is that including review processes into the consent process is essential. By this we specifically mean identifying and creating room for discretion in decision-making to better ensure that informed consent is given in practice. Discretion implies that health care professionals use their judgement to use the legal judgements as guidance rather than prescriptive. Discretion is further defined by identifying the relevant options and scope of clinical and personal factors in specified transplantation decisions. In particular, we also highlight the need to pay attention to the institutional dimension in the consent process. To that end, our recommendations identify a gap in the current approaches to consent. The identification of areas of discretion in decision-making processes is essential for determining when patients need to be involved. In other words, clinicians and healthcare professionals need to consider carefully when there is room for direction and where there is little or no room for exercising discretion. In sum, our proposed approach is a modest contribution to the on-going debate about consent in medicine.

Trials & Tribulations of Liver Transplantation- are trials now prohibitive without surrogate endpoints?

During the past 5 decades, liver transplantation has moved from its pioneering days where success was measured in days to a point where it is viewed as a routine part of medical care. Despite this progress, there are still significant unmet needs and outstanding questions that need addressing in clinical trials to improve outcomes for patients. The traditional endpoint for trials in liver transplantation has been 1-year patient survival, but with rates now approaching 95%, this endpoint now poses a number of significant financial and logistical barriers to conducting trials because of the large numbers of participants required to demonstrate only an incremental improvement. Here, we suggest the following solutions to this challenge: adoption of validated surrogate endpoints; bigger and better collaborative multiarm, multiphase studies; recognition by funders and institutions that work on larger collaborative research projects is potentially more important than smaller, self-led bodies of work; ringfenced areas of research within trial frameworks where individuals can take a lead; and fair funding structures using both industry and public sector money across national and international borders.

Organ transplants of the future: planning for innovations including xenotransplantation.

The future clinical application of animal-to-human transplantation (xenotransplantation) is of importance to society as a whole. Favourable preclinical data relevant to cell, tissue and solid organ xenotransplants have been obtained from many animal models utilizing genetic engineering and protocols of pathogen-free husbandry. Findings have reached a tipping point, and xenotransplantation of solid organs is approaching clinical evaluation, the process of which now requires close deliberation. Such discussions include considering when there is sufficient evidence from preclinical animal studies to start first-in-human xenotransplantation trials. The present article is based on evidence and opinions formulated by members of the European Society for Organ Transplantation who are involved in the Transplantation Learning Journey project. The article includes a brief overview of preclinical concepts and biology of solid organ xenotransplantation, discusses the selection of candidates for first-in-human studies and considers requirements for study design and conduct. In addition, the paper emphasizes the need for a regulatory framework for xenotransplantation of solid organs and the essential requirement for input from public and patient stakeholders.

Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology.

Liver biopsy is required when clinically important information about the diagnosis, prognosis or management of a patient cannot be obtained by safer means, or for research purposes. There are several approaches to liver biopsy but predominantly percutaneous or transvenous approaches are used. A wide choice of needles is available and the approach and type of needle used will depend on the clinical state of the patient and local expertise but, for non-lesional biopsies, a 16-gauge needle is recommended. Many patients with liver disease will have abnormal laboratory coagulation tests or receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet medication. A greater understanding of the changes in haemostasis in liver disease allows for a more rational, evidence-based approach to peri-biopsy management. Overall, liver biopsy is safe but there is a small morbidity and a very small mortality so patients must be fully counselled. The specimen must be of sufficient size for histopathological interpretation. Communication with the histopathologist, with access to relevant clinical information and the results of other investigations, is essential for the generation of a clinically useful report.

Debate on Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation for Alcoholic Hepatitis: Tighten or Loosen?

Although liver transplantation (LT) for alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a well-accepted practice, LT for severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH) remains controversial due to concerns about the limited organ supply and the risk of return to harmful drinking. Recognizing an increasing body of favorable evidence, a convergence of practice guideline recommendations from leading hepatology and gastroenterology societies have suggested that the length of abstinence should not be a sole criterion for LT selection and, thus, that LT may be considered in carefully selected severe AH patients with favorable psychosocial profiles not responding to medical therapy. We sought to examine this new consensus in greater detail, debating whether candidate selection criteria for LT in AH should be tightened or loosened.

Organ utilization - the next hurdle in transplantation?

Nonutilization of organs from consented deceased donors remains a significant factor in limiting patient access to transplantation. Critical to reducing waste is a clear understanding of why organs are not used: accurate metrics are essential to identify the extent and causes of waste but use of these measures as targets or comparators between units/jurisdictions must be done with caution as focus on any one measure may result in unintended adverse consequences. Comparison between centres or countries may be misleading because of variation in definitions, patient or graft characteristics. Two of the most challenging areas to improve appropriate deceased donor organ utilization are appetite for risk and lack of validated tools to help identify an organ that will function appropriately. Currently, the implanting surgeon is widely considered to be accountable for the use of a donated organ so guidelines must be clear to allow and support sensible decisions and recognition that graft failure or inadvertent disease transmission are not necessarily attributable to poor decision-making. Accepting an organ involves balancing risk and benefit for the potential recipient. Novel technologies such as machine perfusion may allow for more robust guidance as to the functioning of the organ.

Liver Transplantation for Alcoholic Liver Disease: What Is the Risk and Consequence of Relapse?

Although short- and medium-term outcomes after liver transplantation for alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) are generally excellent and similar to outcomes for transplantation for other indications, a return to alcohol consumption commonly occurs even though rates of alcohol consumption after transplantation for ARLD are comparable to those seen in other indications. Transplant recipients should be questioned about alcohol use post-transplantation and, where appropriate, monitored; those drinking significant amounts should be offered treatment with the help of a multi-disciplinary team. Although short-term significant alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of non-compliance and rejection, medium-term outcomes are similar to other groups. Patients transplanted for ARLD have a greater risk of some de novo malignancies, especially of the lung and the upper GI tract. More work is required both to identify those at risk of a return to destructive patterns of alcohol use at an early stage and to develop effective treatments aimed at reaching and maintaining abstinence.

Proximity to transplant center and outcome among liver transplant patients.

In the United States, distance from liver transplant center correlates with worsened outcomes; the effects of geography elsewhere are unassessed. We performed a national registry analysis of United Kingdom listings for liver transplantation (1995-2014) and assessed whether travel time to transplant center correlates with outcome. There were 11 188 listings assessed (8490 transplanted), with a median travel time to center of 60 minutes (range 36-86). Of the national population, 3.38 × 107 (55.1%) reside ≥60 minutes from a center, and 7.65 × 106 (12.5%) >119 minutes. After competing risk analysis, increasing travel time was associated with an increased risk of death after listing (subdistribution hazard ratios relative to <60 minutes of 1.33 for 60-119 and 1.27 for >119 minutes; P < 0.001) and reduced likelihood of transplantation or recovery (0.94 and 0.86; P < 0.001). Among those transplanted, travel time was not associated with retransplant-free survival (P = 0.532). We used our model to examine optimal placement of a new center and identify a single site with a total travel time reduction of ≈10%. Our findings of disparities in accessibility of liver transplantation showed worse outcomes following listing in those distant from their transplant center, and our description of a method to model a new center complement existing data and support similar analyses of other networks.

Survival advantage for patients accepting the offer of a circulatory death liver transplant.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the UK has tripled in the last decade. However, outcomes following DCD liver transplantation are worse than for donation after brainstem death (DBD) liver transplants. This study examines whether a recipient should accept a "poorer quality" DCD organ or wait longer for a "better" DBD organ. METHODS: Data were collected on 5,825 patients who were registered on the elective waiting list for a first adult liver-only transplant and 3,949 patients who received a liver-only transplant in the UK between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015. Survival following deceased donor liver transplantation performed between 2008 and 2015 was compared by Cox regression modelling to assess the impact on patient survival of accepting a DCD liver compared to deferring for a potential DBD transplant. RESULTS: A total of 953 (23%) of the 3,949 liver transplantations performed utilised DCD donors. Five-year post-transplant survival was worse following DCD than DBD transplantation (69.1% [DCD] vs. 78.3% [DBD]; p <0.0001: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.65; 95% CI 1.40-1.94). Of the 5,798 patients registered on the transplant list, 1,325 (23%) died or were removed from the list without receiving a transplant. Patients who received DCD livers had a lower risk-adjusted hazard of death than those who remained on the waiting list for a potential DBD organ (adjusted HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.47-0.65). The greatest survival benefit was in those with the most advanced liver disease (adjusted HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Although DCD liver transplantation leads to worse transplant outcomes than DBD transplantation, the individual's survival is enhanced by accepting a DCD offer, particularly for patients with more severe liver disease. DCD liver transplantation improves overall survival for UK listed patients and should be encouraged. LAY SUMMARY: This study looks at patients who require a liver transplant to save their lives; this liver can be donated by a person who has died either after their heart has stopped (donation after cardiac death [DCD]) or after the brain has been injured and can no longer support life (donation after brainstem death [DBD]). We know that livers donated after brainstem death function better than those after cardiac death, but there are not enough of these livers for everyone, so we wished to help patients decide whether it was better for them to accept an early offer of a DCD liver than waiting longer to receive a "better" liver from a DBD donor. We found that patients were more likely to survive if they accepted the offer of a liver transplant as soon as possible (DCD or DBD), especially if their liver disease was very severe.

Transplantation of kidneys from DCD and DBD donors who died after ligature asphyxiation: The UK experience.

There is uncertainty about whether hypoxic injury accompanying donor death from ligature asphyxiation influences renal transplant outcomes, particularly for recipients of kidneys donated after circulatory death (DCD). The UK Registry analysis was undertaken to determine transplant outcomes in recipients of kidneys from donors who died following ligature asphyxiation. From 2003 to 2016, 2.7% (n = 521) of potential organ donors died following ligature asphyxiation (mostly suicide by hanging). Of these, 409 (78.5%) donated kidneys for transplantation (46.9% donation after brain death [DBD] and 53.1% DCD donors) resulting in 650 kidney transplants. Compared to other deceased donors, those dying from ligature asphyxiation were younger, more often male, and had less hypertension. Unadjusted patient and graft survival were superior for recipients of both DBD and DCD kidneys from donors dying after ligature asphyxiation, although after adjustment for donor/recipient variables, transplant outcomes were similar. A case-control matched analysis confirmed transplant outcomes for those who received kidneys from donors dying after ligature asphyxiation were similar to controls. Although caution is required in interpreting these findings because of potential selection bias, kidneys from donors dying of ligature asphyxiation suffer an additional warm ischemic insult that does not apparently adversely influence transplant outcomes, even for kidneys from DCD donors.

Twenty-Year Comparative Analysis of Patients With Autoimmune Liver Diseases on Transplant Waitlists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The rarity of autoimmune liver disease poses challenges to epidemiology studies. However, waitlists for liver transplantation can be used to study patients with end-stage liver diseases. We used these waitlists to assess trends in numbers and demographics of patients awaiting liver transplant for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), or autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). METHODS: We collected data from UK and US national registries for all adults on liver transplant waitlists, from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2014. We analyzed data from patients with PBC (n = 1434 in the United Kingdom and n = 5598 in the United States), PSC (n = 1093 in the United Kingdom and n = 6820 in the United States), and AIH (n = 538 in the United Kingdom and n = 4949 in the United States). Numbers of listings per year were adjusted to the estimated populations during each year. Regression analyses were used to examine trends and comparative statistics were used to evaluate differences in individual characteristics among groups. RESULTS: Over the total study period, listings for PBC were 1.2 and 1.0 per million population per year in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively; for PSC, 0.9 and 1.2 per million population per year; and for AIH, 0.5 and 0.8 per million population per year. Over the period studied, numbers of listings for PBC decreased by 50% in both countries; changes in numbers of listings for PSC and AIH were smaller and not consistent between countries. By 2014, PSC had become the leading indication for liver transplantation among patients with autoimmune liver diseases in both countries. Median patient ages at time of listing were lower than those reported as median age of diagnosis for AIH and PBC. The ratio of women:men with PBC decreased by almost 50% from 1995 through 2014. Men with PSC were placed on the waitlist with higher disease severity scores than women in both countries. Among patients with PBC, those of black race were under-represented on waitlists from both countries. Among patients with PSC, Hispanics were under-represented on waitlists in the United States. Patients of non-white races were placed on waitlists at younger ages for all diseases; age differences in waitlist placement varied by up to 10 years, depending on race, among patients with PBC. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data collected from UK and US national liver transplant registries over 20 years, we found that PSC has become the leading indication for liver transplantation among patients with autoimmune liver diseases. Numbers of patients with PBC placed on waitlists, and the ratio of women:men with PBC, each decreased by almost 50%, possibly due to increased treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid. Within groups of patients on the transplant waitlist for PBC, PSC, or AIH, we found differences in age, sex, disease severity scores, and ethnicity between diseases and countries that require further study.

Transplantation as disease modifying therapy in adults with inherited metabolic disorders.

Transplantation is an established disease modifying therapy in selected children with certain inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs). Transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells or solid organs can be used to partially correct the underlying metabolic defect, address life threatening disease manifestations (such as neutropenia) or correct organ failure caused by the disease process. Much less information is available on the use of transplantation in adults with IMDs. Transplantation is indicated for the same IMDs in adults as in children. Despite similar disease specific indications, the actual spectrum of diseases for which transplantation is used differs between these age groups and this is partly related to the natural history of disease. There are diseases (such as urea cycle defects and X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy) for which transplantation is recommended for selected symptomatic patients as a treatment strategy in both adults and children. In those diseases, the frequency with which transplantation is used in adults is lower than in children and this may be related in part to a reduced awareness of transplantation as a treatment strategy amongst adult clinicians as well as limited donor availability and allocation policies which may disadvantage adult patients with IMDs. Risks of transplantation and disease-specific prognostic factors influencing outcomes also differ with age. We review the use of transplantation as a disease modifying strategy in adults focusing on how this differs from use in children to highlight areas for future research.

Alcohol, Diet and Drug Use Preceding Alcoholic Hepatitis.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is a severe manifestation of alcohol-related liver disease characterised by jaundice and liver failure. It is not known what might trigger an episode of AH. We interviewed patients to investigate changes in behaviour before the onset of AH. METHODS: Structured interviews were performed with patients with AH to examine their alcohol use, diet, drug use and smoking habit. Clinical and laboratory results were noted. Patients were followed up for 12 months after interview. RESULTS: Data from 39 patients was analysed. No single behavioural change occurred before the onset of jaundice, although reductions in alcohol and/or dietary intake were common. Reduction in alcohol use was seen to occur approximately 14 days before the onset of jaundice. Increased alcohol intake was not common. Clinical and laboratory data varied between types of behaviour changes, although these were not statistically significant. No changes in drug use or tobacco were reported before AH. Those who had not reduced alcohol intake or had increased their drinking had better survival. CONCLUSIONS: No single type of behaviour change is associated with AH. Contrary to previous assertions, increased alcohol intake was not common; in fact, participants were much more likely to have reduced their alcohol intake.

The UK-PBC risk scores: Derivation and validation of a scoring system for long-term prediction of end-stage liver disease in primary biliary cholangitis.

UNLABELLED: The biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)--so-called "treatment response"--strongly predicts long-term outcome in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Several long-term prognostic models based solely on the treatment response have been developed that are widely used to risk stratify PBC patients and guide their management. However, they do not take other prognostic variables into account, such as the stage of the liver disease. We sought to improve existing long-term prognostic models of PBC using data from the UK-PBC Research Cohort. We performed Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis of diverse explanatory variables in a derivation cohort of 1,916 UDCA-treated participants. We used nonautomatic backward selection to derive the best-fitting Cox model, from which we derived a multivariable fractional polynomial model. We combined linear predictors and baseline survivor functions in equations to score the risk of a liver transplant or liver-related death occurring within 5, 10, or 15 years. We validated these risk scores in an independent cohort of 1,249 UDCA-treated participants. The best-fitting model consisted of the baseline albumin and platelet count, as well as the bilirubin, transaminases, and alkaline phosphatase, after 12 months of UDCA. In the validation cohort, the 5-, 10-, and 15-year risk scores were highly accurate (areas under the curve: >0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of PBC patients can be accurately evaluated using the UK-PBC risk scores. They may be used to identify high-risk patients for closer monitoring and second-line therapies, as well as low-risk patients who could potentially be followed up in primary care.

Rapid dissemination of human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 during primary infection in transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) infects an estimated 10 million persons globally with transmission resulting in lifelong infection. Disease, linked to high proviral load, occurs in a minority. In established infection HTLV-1 replicates through infectious spread and clonal expansion of infected lymphocytes. Little is known about acute HTLV-1 infection. The kinetics of early HTLV-1 infection, following transplantation-acquired infection in three recipients from one HTLV-1 infected donor, is reported. The recipients were treated with two HTLV-1 enzyme inhibitors 3 weeks post exposure following the detection of HTLV-1 provirus at low level in each recipient. HTLV-1 infection was serially monitored by serology, quantification of proviral load and HTLV-1 2LTR DNA circles and by HTLV-1 unique integration site analysis. RESULTS: HTLV-1 antibodies were first detected 16-39 days post-transplantation. HTLV-1 provirus was detected by PCR on day 16-23 and increased by 2-3 log by day 38-45 with a peak proviral doubling time of 1.4 days, after which steady state was reached. The rapid proviral load expansion was associated with high frequency of HTLV-1 2LTR DNA circles. The number of HTLV-1 unique integration sites was high compared with established HTLV-1 infection. Clonal expansion of infected cells was detected as early as day 37 with high initial oligoclonality index, consistent with early mitotic proliferation. CONCLUSIONS: In recipients infected through organ transplantation HTLV-1 disseminated rapidly despite early anti-HTLV-1 treatment. Proviral load set point was reached within 6 weeks. Seroconversion was not delayed. Unique integration site analysis and HTLV-1 2LTR DNA circles indicated early clonal expansion and high rate of infectious spread.

A Donation After Circulatory Death Program Has the Potential to Increase the Number of Donors After Brain Death.

OBJECTIVES: Donation after circulatory death has been responsible for 75% of the increase in the numbers of deceased organ donors in the United Kingdom. There has been concern that the success of the donation after circulatory death program has been at the expense of donation after brain death. The objective of the study was to ascertain the impact of the donation after circulatory death program on donation after brain death in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A national organ procurement organization. PATIENTS: Patients referred and assessed as donation after circulatory death donors in the United Kingdom between October and December 2013. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were assessed for donation after circulatory death. Of these, 193 were eligible donors. Three patients were deemed medically unsuitable following surgical inspection, 56 patients did not proceed due to asystole, and 134 proceeded to donation. Four donors had insufficient data available for analysis. Therefore, 186 cases were analyzed in total. Organ donation would not have been possible in 79 of the 130 actual donors if donation after circulatory death was not available. Thirty-six donation after circulatory death donors (28% of actual donors) were judged to have the potential to progress to brain death if withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment had been delayed by up to a further 36 hours. A further 15 donation after circulatory death donors had brain death confirmed or had clinical indications of brain death with clear mitigating circumstances in all but three cases. We determined that the maximum potential donation after brain death to donation after circulatory death substitution rate observed was 8%; however due to mitigating circumstances, only three patients (2%) could have undergone brain death testing. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a national donation after circulatory death program has had minimal impact on the number of donation after brain death donors. The number of donation after brain death donors could increase with changes in end-of-life care practices to allow the evolution of brain death and increasing the availability of ancillary testing.

Liver transplantation in the United Kingdom.

Liver transplantation (LT) services in the United Kingdom are provided by 7 designated transplant centers for a population of approximately 64 million. The number of deceased organ donors has grown, and in 2014-2015 it was 1282 (570 donation after circulatory death and 772 donation after brain death). Donor risk is increasing. In 2014-2015, there were 829 LTs from deceased and 38 from living donors. The common causes for transplantation are liver cell cancer, viral hepatitis, and alcohol-related liver disease. Livers are allocated first nationally to super-urgent listed patients and then on a zonal basis. The United Kingdom will be moving toward a national allocation scheme. The median interval between listing and transplantation is 152 days for adults awaiting their first elective transplant. Of the adults listed for the first elective transplant, 68% underwent transplantation at < 1 year; 17% are waiting; and 4% and 11% were removed or died, respectively. The 1- and 5-year adult patient survival rate from listing is 81% and 68%, respectively, and from transplantation is 92% and 80%, respectively. The transplant program is funded through general taxation and is free at the point of care to those who are eligible for National Health Service (NHS) treatment; some have to pay for medication (up to a maximum payment of US $151/year). The competent authority is the Human Tissue Authority which licenses donor characterization, retrieval, and implantation; transplant units are commissioned by NHS England and NHS Scotland. National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) promotes organ donation, maintains the organ donor register, obtains consent, and undertakes donor characterization and offering. NHSBT also maintains the national waiting list, develops and applies selection and allocation policies, monitors outcomes, and maintains the UK National Transplant Registry and commissions a national organ retrieval service. Liver Transplantation 22 1129-1135 2016 AASLD.

Longterm corticosteroid use after liver transplantation for autoimmune hepatitis is safe and associated with a lower incidence of recurrent disease.

Patients transplanted for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) are at risk of recurrent disease. Our current practice is to maintain long-term low-dose corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressive agents. This study describes the implications on patients' outcomes, sepsis, and osteoporosis. We collected data on patients transplanted between January 1999 and October 2014 in a single center who survived for more than 6 months. AIH recurrence was diagnosed by a combination of histology, raised immunoglobulin G levels, and exclusion of other etiologies. Sepsis was defined as any infection that resulted in significant morbidity or mortality. Osteoporosis was defined as a bone densitometry T score of less than -2.0 or evidence of osteoporosis-related fractures. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis methods. Seventy-three AIH patients underwent liver transplantation with a median follow-up of 94 months (interquartile range, 55-144). The cohort was mainly Caucasian (78%), female (79%), with type 1 AIH (90%), and a mean age of 43 ± 15 years. Overall survival was 92%, 90%, 86%, and 73%, and regraft-free survival was 86%, 81%, 78%, and 64% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Five patients developed AIH recurrence, giving recurrence rates of 0%, 4%, 6%, and 11% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Pneumonia was the most common infection, but gastroenteritis and cholangitis were the most recurrent. Freedom from sepsis was 91%, 82%, 80%, and 63%, and freedom from osteoporosis was 100%, 94%, 82%, and 58% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Longterm low-dose corticosteroid in combination with other immunosuppressive agents seems to reduce AIH recurrence without jeopardizing patient and graft survival. Sepsis and osteoporosis did not occur more often compared to the published literature on liver transplant recipients.