Addressing the Burden and Management Strategies for Disparities and Inequities Among Liver Transplant Professionals: The ILTS Experience.

Medical professional environments are becoming increasingly multicultural, international, and diverse in terms of its specialists. Many transplant professionals face challenges related to gender, sexual orientation or racial background in their work environment or experience inequities involving access to leadership positions, professional promotion, and compensation. These circumstances not infrequently become a major source of work-related stress and burnout for these disadvantaged, under-represented transplant professionals. In this review, we aim to 1) discuss the current perceptions regarding disparities among liver transplant providers 2) outline the burden and impact of disparities and inequities in the liver transplant workforce 3) propose potential solutions and role of professional societies to mitigate inequities and maximize inclusion within the transplant community

Worldwide variations in COVID-19 vaccination policies and practices in liver transplant settings: results of a multi-society global survey

BackgroundDespite the WHO's report of 24 available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, limited data exist regarding vaccination policies for liver transplant (LT) patients. To address this, we conducted a global multi-society survey (EASL-ESOT-ELITA-ILTS) in LT centers.MethodsA digital questionnaire assessing vaccine policies, safety, efficacy, and center data was administered online to LT centers.ResultsOut of 168 responding centers, 46.4%, 28%, 13.1%, 10.7%, and 1.8% were from European, American, Western Pacific, Southeast Asian, and Eastern Mediterranean Regions. Most LT centers prioritized COVID-19 vaccine access for LT patients (76%) and healthcare workers (86%), while other categories had lower priority (30%). One-third of responders recommended mRNA vaccine exclusively, while booster doses were widely recommended (81%). One-third conducted post-vaccine liver function tests post COVID-19 vaccine. Only 16% of centers modified immunosuppression, and mycophenolate discontinuation or modification was the main approach. Side effects were seen in 1 in 1,000 vaccinated patients, with thromboembolism, acute rejection, and allergic reaction being the most severe. mRNA showed fewer side effects (−3.1, p = 0.002).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines and booster doses were widely used among LT recipients and healthcare workers, without a specific vaccine preference. Preventative immunosuppression adjustment post-vaccination was uncommon. mRNA vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile in this population

Management of alcohol use disorder in patients with cirrhosis in the setting of liver transplantation.

The prevalence of alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been steadily increasing over the past decade. In parallel, alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) has been increasing at an alarming rate, especially among young patients. Data suggest that most patients with ALD do not receive AUD therapy. Although liver transplantation is the only curative therapy for end-stage ALD, transplant candidacy is often a matter of debate given concerns about patients being under-treated for AUD and fears of post-transplantation relapse affecting the allograft. In this Review, we discuss diagnosis, predictors and effects of relapse, behavioural therapies and pharmacotherapies, and we also propose an integrative, multidisciplinary and multimodality approach for treating AUD in patients with cirrhosis, especially in the setting of liver transplantation. Notably, this approach takes into account the utility of AUD pharmacotherapy in patients on immunosuppressive medications and those with renal impairment after liver transplantation. We also propose a comprehensive and objective definition of relapse utilizing contemporary biomarkers to guide future clinical trials. Future research using the proposed approach and definition is warranted with the goal of optimizing AUD treatment in patients with cirrhosis, the transplant selection process and post-transplantation care of patients with AUD

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma in liver transplant recipients: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Malignancy is one of the known leading causes of death among long-term liver transplantation (LT) survivors. Pancreatic cancer has an incidence of 7.6/100,000 in North America and constitutes a diagnostic challenge post-LT. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective review of the electronic health records (EHRs) of LT recipients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (1990-2019). The prevalence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in our institutional non-LT population was assessed using an institutional de-identified database (Synthetic Derivative). RESULTS: Six out of 2,232 (0.27%) LT recipients were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Median age at diagnosis was 66.0 years (IQR, 57.8-71.8 years). Median time from LT to pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosis was 8.9 years (IQR, 4.7-16.2 years), the median size on imaging was 3.2 cm (IQR, 3.1-4.7 cm), and all tumors were located on the head of the pancreas. Three patients underwent surgical resection (one with adjuvant chemotherapy), two underwent palliative care, and one palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine and abraxane. Over a median follow-up of 220.5 days (IQR, 144.8-399.5 days), all six patients died due to disease progression (100%). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 5,033 out of 2,484,772 (0.20%) individuals in the Synthetic Derivative. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified an increased incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma following LT compared to the general population

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy: Appraisal of the original and revised criteria in predicting posttransplant cardiac outcomes.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation (LT). Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM) is a risk factor for CVD after transplant. CCM criteria were originally introduced in 2005 with a revision proposed in 2020 reflecting echocardiographic technology advancements. This study assesses the two criteria sets in predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after transplant. This single-center retrospective study reviewed adult LT recipients between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018. Patients with insufficient pre-LT echocardiographic data, prior ischemic heart disease, portopulmonary hypertension, or longitudinal care elsewhere were excluded. The primary composite outcome was MACE (arrhythmia, heart failure, cardiac arrest, and/or cardiac death) after transplant. Of 1165 patients, 210 met the eligibility criteria. CCM was present in 162 patients (77%) per the original criteria and 64 patients (30%) per the revised criteria. There were 44 MACE and 31 deaths in the study period. Of the deaths, 38.7% occurred secondary to CVD. CCM defined by the original criteria was not associated with MACE after LT (p = 0.21), but the revised definition was significantly associated with MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.56; p = 0.04) on multivariable analysis. Echocardiographic variable analysis demonstrated low septal e as the most predictive variable for MACE after LT (HR, 3.45; p < 0.001). CCM, only when defined by the revised criteria, was associated with increased risk for MACE after LT, validating the recently revised CCM definition. Abnormal septal e, reflecting impaired relaxation, appears to be the most predictive echocardiographic criterion for MACE after LT

Global impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on liver transplant centers: A multi-society survey (EASL-ESOT/ELITA-ILTS)

Background and Aims: The global impact of SARS-CoV-2 on liver transplantation (LT) practices across the world is unknown. The goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the pandemic on global LT practices. Method: A prospective web-based survey (available online from 7th September 2020 to 31st December 2020) was proposed to the active members of the EASL-ESOT/ELITA-ILTS in the Americas (including North, Central, and South America) (R1), Europe (R2), and the rest of the world (R3). The survey comprised 4 parts concerning transplant processes, therapy, living donors, and organ procurement. Results: Of the 470 transplant centers reached, 128 answered each part of the survey, 29 centers (23%), 64 centers (50%), and 35 centers (27%) from R1, R2, and R3, respectively. When we compared the practices during the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020 with those a year earlier in 2019, statistically significant differences were found in the number of patients added to the waiting list (WL), WL mortality, and the number of LTs performed. At the regional level, we found that in R2 the number of LTs was significantly higher in 2019 (p <0.01), while R3 had more patients listed, higher WL mortality, and more LTs performed before the pandemic. Countries severely affected by the pandemic (“hit” countries) had a lower number of WL patients (p = 0.009) and LTs (p = 0.002) during the pandemic. Interestingly, WL mortality was still higher in the “non-hit” countries in 2020 compared to 2019 (p = 0.022). Conclusion: The first wave of the pandemic differentially impacted LT practices across the world, especially with detrimental effects on the “hit” countries. Modifications to the policies of recipient and donor selection, organ retrieval, and postoperative recipient management were adopted at a regional or national level. Lay summary: The health emergency caused by the coronavirus pandemic has dramatically changed clinical practice during the pandemic. The first wave of the pandemic impacted liver transplantation differently across the world, with particularly detrimental effects on the countries badly hit by the virus. The resilience of the entire transplant network has enabled continued organ donation and transplantation, ultimately improving the lives of patients with end-stage liver disease

Triple‐Phase Computed Tomography May Replace Dual‐Energy X‐ray Absorptiometry Scan for Evaluation of Osteoporosis in Liver Transplant Candidates

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167081/1/lt25926_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167081/2/lt25926.pd