Recurrence of Hepatitis B Infection in Liver Transplant Patients Receiving Long-Term Hepatitis B Immunoglobulin Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND Long-term real-world data are relatively sparse regarding recurrence of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after liver transplantation using hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIg) and nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) prophylaxis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data from 371 adults transplanted for HBV-related disease at 20 European centers and given HBIg for ³12 months ± NUC therapy were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS HBIg comprised Hepatect® (iv HBIgB; n=299), subcutaneous Zutectra® (sc HBIg, n=236), and other HBIg preparations (n=130); 93.5% received NUC therapy. Mean follow-up was 6.8±3.5 years. The primary efficacy variable, freedom from HBV recurrence, occurred in 95.7% of patients (95% CI [93.1%, 97.5%]). The observed incidence of recurrence was 16/371 (4.3%) (annual rate 0.65%); 5/16 patients with recurrence had discontinued HBIg and 7/16 had anti-HBs <100 IU/l. Excluding these 7 patients, the HBV recurrence rate was 2.4%. The recurrence rate while on HBIg therapy was 1 per 2069 months. In patients who discontinued HBIg, risk of HBV recurrence versus sc HBIg users was increased by 5.2-fold (1 per 1 603 versus 1 per 8379 treatment months). The annual rate of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence was 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS These results support the long-term use of HBIg with NUC therapy as an effective management strategy to minimize risk of HBV recurrence and virus-related complications after liver transplantation

Survival benefit of second line therapies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: repeated hepatectomy, thermoablation and second-line transplant referral in a real life national scenario

Background: Despite second-line transplant(SLT) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma(rHCC) leads to the longest survival after recurrence(SAR), its real applicability has never been reported. The aim was to compare the SAR of SLT versus repeated hepatectomy and thermoablation(CUR group). Methods: Patients were enrolled from the Italian register HE.RC.O.LE.S. between 2008 and 2021. Two groups were created: CUR versus SLT. A propensity score matching (PSM) was run to balance the groups. Results: 743 patients were enrolled, CUR = 611 and SLT = 132. Median age at recurrence was 71(IQR 6575) years old and 60(IQR 53-64, p < 0.001) for CUR and SLT respectively. After PSM, median SAR for CUR was 43 months(95%CI = 37 - 93) and not reached for SLT(p < 0.001). SLT patients gained a survival benefit of 9.4 months if compared with CUR. MilanCriteria(MC)-In patients were 82.7% of the CUR group. SLT(HR 0.386, 95%CI = 0.23 - 0.63, p < 0.001) and the MELD score(HR 1.169, 95%CI = 1.07 - 1.27, p < 0.001) were the only predictors of mortality. In case of MC-Out, the only predictor of mortality was the number of nodules at recurrence(HR 1.45, 95%CI= 1.09 - 1.93, p = 0.011). Conclusion: It emerged an important transplant under referral in favour of repeated hepatectomy or thermoablation. In patients with MC-Out relapse, the benefit of SLT over CUR was not observed

Liver Match, a prospective observational cohort study on liver transplantation in Italy: study design and current practice of donor-recipient matching

The Liver Match is an observational cohort study that prospectively enrolled liver transplantations performed at 20 out of 21 Italian Transplant Centres between June 2007 and May 2009. Aim of the study is to investigate the impact of donor/recipient matching on outcomes. In this report we describe the study methodology and provide a cross-sectional description of donor and recipient characteristics and of graft allocation

Perspectives from Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: nationwide survey-based focus on minimally invasive HPB surgery

The safety of minimally invasive procedures during COVID pandemic remains hotly debated, especially in a country, like Italy, where minimally invasive techniques have progressively and pervasively entered clinical practice, in both the hepatobiliary and pancreatic community. A nationwide snapshot of the management of HPB minimally invasive surgery activity during COVID-19 pandemic is provided: a survey was developed and conducted within AICEP (Italian Association of HepatoBilioPancreatic Surgeons) with the final aim of conveying the experience, knowledge, and opinions into a unitary report enabling more efficient crisis management. Results from the survey (81 respondents) show that, in Italian hospitals, minimally invasive surgery maintains its role despite the COVID-19 pandemic, with the registered reduction of cases being proportional to the overall reduction of the HPB surgical activity. Respondents agree that the switch from minimally invasive to open technique can be considered as a valid option for cases with a high technical complexity. Several issues merit specific attention: screening for virus positivity should be universally performed; only expert surgical teams should operate on positive patients and specific technical measures to lower the biological risk of contamination during surgery must be followed. Future studies specifically designed to establish the true risks in minimally invasive surgery are suggested. Furthermore, a standard and univocal process of prioritization of patients from Regional Healthcare Systems is advisable

Perspectives from Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: nationwide survey-based focus on minimally invasive HPB surgery

The safety of minimally invasive procedures during COVID pandemic remains hotly debated, especially in a country, like Italy, where minimally invasive techniques have progressively and pervasively entered clinical practice, in both the hepatobiliary and pancreatic community. A nationwide snapshot of the management of HPB minimally invasive surgery activity during COVID-19 pandemic is provided: a survey was developed and conducted within AICEP (Italian Association of HepatoBilioPancreatic Surgeons) with the final aim of conveying the experience, knowledge, and opinions into a unitary report enabling more efficient crisis management. Results from the survey (81 respondents) show that, in Italian hospitals, minimally invasive surgery maintains its role despite the COVID-19 pandemic, with the registered reduction of cases being proportional to the overall reduction of the HPB surgical activity. Respondents agree that the switch from minimally invasive to open technique can be considered as a valid option for cases with a high technical complexity. Several issues merit specific attention: screening for virus positivity should be universally performed; only expert surgical teams should operate on positive patients and specific technical measures to lower the biological risk of contamination during surgery must be followed. Future studies specifically designed to establish the true risks in minimally invasive surgery are suggested. Furthermore, a standard and univocal process of prioritization of patients from Regional Healthcare Systems is advisable