Liver regeneration after living donor transplantation: Adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109827/1/lt23966.pd

Changes in liver and spleen volumes after living liver donation: A report from the adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110585/1/lt24062.pd

Implementation of Vascularized Composite Allografts in the United States: Recommendations From the ASTS VCA Ad Hoc Committee and the Executive Committee

Like all other areas of transplantation, vascularized composite allografts (VCA) has the capacity to transform the lives of patients, for the better or for the worse. It is this duality that mandates VCA be performed in centers prepared for the intricacies accompanying other transplant procedures. Similarly, the complexities of VCA require that the procedures be driven by surgeons and physicians with experience in the multidisciplinary management of immunocompromised postsurgical patients. Furthermore, the grafts should be considered as organs rather than tissues from a regulatory and a biological standpoint. The ASTS supports the field of VCA and has demonstrated its support and leadership by actively formulating a strategy for its systematic development. The goal of this document is to provide a framework for the prospective, thoughtful realization of VCA in the United States from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) perspective.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79113/1/j.1600-6143.2010.03374.x.pd

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence and Death Following Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75606/1/j.1600-6143.2007.01802.x.pd

Laboratory test results after living liver donation in the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study

Information on the long-term health of living liver donors is incomplete. Because changes in standard laboratory tests may reflect the underlying health of donors, results before and after donation were examined in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). A2ALL followed 487 living liver donors who donated at 9 US transplant centers between 1998 and 2009. The aminotransferase [aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)] and alkaline phosphatase (AP) activities, bilirubin, international normalized ratio (INR), albumin, white blood cell count (WBC), hemoglobin (HGB), platelet count, ferritin, serum creatinine (SCR), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were measured at the evaluation and after donation (1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 1 year, and yearly thereafter). Repeated measures models were used to estimate median laboratory values at each time point and to test for differences between values at the evaluation (baseline) and postdonation time points. Platelet counts were significantly decreased at every time point in comparison with the baseline, and at 3 years, they were 19% lower. Approximately 10% of donors had a platelet count < 150 × 1000/mm 3 2 to 3 years post-donation. Donors with a platelet count ≤ 150 × 1000/mm 3 at 1 year had significantly lower mean platelet counts (189 ± 32 × 1000/mm 3 ) versus the remainder of the cohort (267 ± 56 × 1000/mm 3 , P < 0.0001) at the evaluation. Statistically significant differences compared to the evaluation values were noted for AST, AP, INR, and albumin through the first year, although most measurements were in the normal range. The median values for WBC, HGB, ferritin, albumin, SCR, BUN, and INR were not substantially outside the normal range at any time point. In conclusion, after 3 months, most laboratory values return to normal among right hepatic lobe liver donors, with a slower return to baseline levels for AST, AP, INR, and albumin. Persistently decreased platelet counts warrant further investigation. Liver Transpl, 2011. © 2011 AASLD.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83476/1/22246_ftp.pd

Recipient Morbidity After Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: Findings from the A2ALL Retrospective Cohort Study †

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72284/1/j.1600-6143.2008.02440.x.pd

Liver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the model for endstage liver disease allocation era

Receipt of a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been associated with improved survival compared with waiting for a deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT). However, the survival benefit of liver transplant has been questioned for candidates with Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scores <15, and the survival advantage of LDLT has not been demonstrated during the MELD allocation era, especially for low MELD patients. Transplant candidates enrolled in the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study after February 28, 2002 were followed for a median of 4.6 years. Starting at the time of presentation of the first potential living donor, mortality for LDLT recipients was compared to mortality for patients who remained on the waiting list or received DDLT (no LDLT group) according to categories of MELD score (<15 or ≥15) and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Of 868 potential LDLT recipients (453 with MELD <15; 415 with MELD ≥15 at entry), 712 underwent transplantation (406 LDLT; 306 DDLT), 83 died without transplant, and 73 were alive without transplant at last follow‐up. Overall, LDLT recipients had 56% lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32‐0.60; P < 0.0001). Among candidates without HCC, mortality benefit was seen both with MELD <15 (HR = 0.39; P = 0.0003) and MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.42; P = 0.0006). Among candidates with HCC, a benefit of LDLT was not seen for MELD <15 (HR = 0.82, P = 0.65) but was seen for MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.29, P = 0.043). Conclusion: Across the range of MELD scores, patients without HCC derived a significant survival benefit when undergoing LDLT rather than waiting for DDLT in the MELD liver allocation era. Low MELD candidates with HCC may not benefit from LDLT. (H EPATOLOGY 2011;54:1313–1321)Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86878/1/24494_ftp.pd

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Background Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. Methods The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. Actionable Recommendations The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. Discussion The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases