-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Non-adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a significant concern following a solid organ transplant, given its association with graft failure. Adherence to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a significant concern following a solid organ transplant, given its association with graft failure. Adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a modifiable patient behaviour, and different approaches to increasing adherence have emerged, including multi-component interventions. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to immunosuppressant therapy.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of using interventions for increasing adherence to immunosuppressant therapies in solid organ transplant recipients, including adults and children with a heart, lung, kidney, liver and pancreas transplant.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 14 October 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs examining interventions to increase immunosuppressant adherence following a solid organ transplant (heart, lung, kidney, liver, pancreas) were included. There were no restrictions on language or publication type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified records, evaluated study quality and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. The ABC taxonomy for measuring medication adherence provided the analysis framework, and the primary outcomes were immunosuppressant medication initiation, implementation (taking adherence, dosing adherence, timing adherence, drug holidays) and persistence. Secondary outcomes were surrogate markers of adherence, including self-reported adherence, trough concentration levels of immunosuppressant medication, acute graft rejection, graft loss, death, hospital readmission and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Meta-analysis was conducted where possible, and narrative synthesis was carried out for the remainder of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty studies involving 3896 randomised participants (3718 adults and 178 adolescents) were included. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of intervention and outcomes assessed. The majority of studies (80%) were conducted in kidney transplant recipients. Two studies examined paediatric solid organ transplant recipients. The risk of bias was generally high or unclear, leading to lower certainty in the results. Initiation of immunosuppression was not measured by the included studies. There is uncertain evidence of an association between immunosuppressant medication adherence interventions and the proportion of participants classified as adherent to taking immunosuppressant medication (4 studies, 445 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20; I² = 78%). There was very marked heterogeneity in treatment effects between the four studies evaluating taking adherence, which may have been due to the different types of interventions used. There was evidence of increasing dosing adherence in the intervention group (8 studies, 713 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26, I² = 61%). There was very marked heterogeneity in treatment effects between the eight studies evaluating dosing adherence, which may have been due to the different types of interventions used. It was uncertain if an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on timing adherence or drug holidays. There was limited evidence that an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on persistence. There was limited evidence that an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on secondary outcomes. For self-reported adherence, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the proportion of participants classified as medically adherent to immunosuppressant therapy (9 studies, 755 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49; I² = 74%; very low certainty evidence). Similarly, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the mean adherence score on self-reported adherence measures (5 studies, 471 participants: SMD 0.65, 95% CI -0.31 to 1.60; I² = 96%; very low certainty evidence). For immunosuppressant trough concentration levels, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the proportion of participants who reach target immunosuppressant trough concentration levels (4 studies, 348 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; I² = 40%; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication may reduce hospitalisations (5 studies, 460 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; I² = 64%; low certainty evidence). There were limited, low certainty effects on patient-reported health outcomes such as HRQoL. There was no clear evidence to determine the effect of interventions on secondary outcomes, including acute graft rejection, graft loss and death. No harms from intervention participation were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Interventions to increase taking and dosing adherence to immunosuppressant therapy may be effective; however, our findings suggest that current evidence in support of interventions to increase adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is overall of low methodological quality, attributable to small sample sizes, and heterogeneity identified for the types of interventions. Twenty-four studies are currently ongoing or awaiting assessment (3248 proposed participants); therefore, it is possible that findings may change with the inclusion of these large ongoing studies in future updates.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Medication Adherence; Organ Transplantation; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 36094829
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012854.pub2 -
Transplant International : Official... 2022This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies....
This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies. Sensitization should be defined using a virtual parameter such as calculated Reaction Frequency (cRF), which assesses HLA antibodies derived from the actual organ donor population. Highly sensitized patients should be prioritized in kidney allocation schemes and linking allocation schemes may increase opportunities. The use of the ENGAGE 5 ((Bestard et al., Transpl Int, 2021, 34: 1005-1018) system and online calculators for assessing risk is recommended. The Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program should be extended. If strategies for finding a compatible kidney are very unlikely to yield a transplant, desensitization may be considered and should be performed with plasma exchange or immunoadsorption, supplemented with IViG and/or anti-CD20 antibody. Newer therapies, such as imlifidase, may offer alternatives. Few studies compare HLA incompatible transplantation with remaining on the waiting list, and comparisons of morbidity or quality of life do not exist. Kidney paired exchange programs (KEP) should be more widely used and should include unspecified and deceased donors, as well as compatible living donor pairs. The use of a KEP is preferred to desensitization, but highly sensitized patients should not be left on a KEP list indefinitely if the option of a direct incompatible transplant exists.
Topics: Antibodies; HLA Antigens; Histocompatibility Testing; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Living Donors; Quality of Life; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 36033645
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10511 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Dec 2022West Nile virus (WNv) is a major cause of viral encephalitis in the United States. WNv infection is usually asymptomatic or a limited febrile illness in the...
UNLABELLED
West Nile virus (WNv) is a major cause of viral encephalitis in the United States. WNv infection is usually asymptomatic or a limited febrile illness in the immunocompetent hosts, although a small percentage can develop neuroinvasive disease. Neuroinvasive disease due to WNv in solid organ transplant recipients occurs at higher rates than observed in the general population and can have long term neurological sequalae.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all solid organ transplant recipients at our institution who tested positive for WNv from 2010 to 2018. Two reviewers performed electronic searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library of literature of WNv infections in SOT. Descriptive statistics were performed on key variables.
RESULTS
Eight recipients (mean age 54, five males) were diagnosed with neuroinvasive WNv infection at our institution. Distribution of infection was as follows: five kidney transplants, one in each kidney-pancreas, liver, and lung. Diagnoses included meningitis (3), encephalitis (1), meningo-encephalitis (4). Median time from transplant to infection was 49.8 months (2.7-175.4). No infections were considered donor-derived. Five patients received treatment with IVIG. Six patients were alive at median follow-up of 49.5 months (21.7-116.8). We identified 29 studies published from 2002 to 2019. Median time from transplant to infection was 14.2 months, with similar allograft distribution; 53% were donor-derived infections.
CONCLUSION
WNv infections in solid organ transplant recipients can be a consequence of organ donation or can be acquired via the community. Infections can be more severe in SOT recipients and lead to neuroinvasive disease.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Kidney Transplantation; Organ Transplantation; Retrospective Studies; United States; West Nile Fever; West Nile virus
PubMed: 35980220
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13929 -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Dec 2022We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk factors involved for an impaired response.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published up until January 11, 2022, that reported immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccine among SOT. The study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022300547.
RESULTS
Of the 1527 studies, 112 studies, which involved 15391 SOT and 2844 healthy controls, were included. SOT showed a low humoral response (effect size [ES]: 0.44 [0.40-0.48]) in overall and in control studies (log-Odds-ratio [OR]: -4.46 [-8.10 to -2.35]). The humoral response was highest in liver (ES: 0.67 [0.61-0.74]) followed by heart (ES: 0.45 [0.32-0.59]), kidney (ES: 0.40 [0.36-0.45]), kidney-pancreas (ES: 0.33 [0.13-0.53]), and lung (0.27 [0.17-0.37]). The meta-analysis for standard and booster dose (ES: 0.43 [0.39-0.47] vs. 0.51 [0.43-0.54]) showed a marginal increase of 18% efficacy. SOT with prior infection had higher response (ES: 0.94 [0.92-0.96] vs. ES: 0.40 [0.39-0.41]; p-value < .01). The seroresponse with mRNA-12723 mRNA was highest 0.52 (0.40-0.64). Mycophenolic acid (OR: 1.42 [1.21-1.63]) and Belatacept (OR: 1.89 [1.3-2.49]) had highest risk for nonresponse. SOT had a parallelly decreased cellular response (ES: 0.42 [0.32-0.52]) in overall and control studies (OR: -3.12 [-0.4.12 to -2.13]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, SOT develops a suboptimal response compared to the general population. Immunosuppression including mycophenolic acid, belatacept, and tacrolimus is associated with decreased response. Booster doses increase the immune response, but further upgradation in vaccination strategy for SOT is required.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Mycophenolic Acid; Organ Transplantation; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35924679
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13926 -
BJS Open May 2022
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 35598157
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac051 -
Journal of Nephrology Sep 2022Transplant nephropathology is a highly specialized field of pathology comprising both the evaluation of organ donor biopsy for organ allocation and post-transplant graft... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Transplant nephropathology is a highly specialized field of pathology comprising both the evaluation of organ donor biopsy for organ allocation and post-transplant graft biopsy for assessment of rejection or graft damage. The introduction of digital pathology with whole-slide imaging (WSI) in clinical research, trials and practice has catalyzed the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for histopathology, with development of novel machine-learning models for tissue interrogation and discovery. We aimed to review the literature for studies specifically applying AI algorithms to WSI-digitized pre-implantation kidney biopsy.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in the electronic databases PubMed-MEDLINE and Embase until 25th September, 2021 with a combination of the key terms "kidney", "biopsy", "transplantation" and "artificial intelligence" and their aliases. Studies dealing with the application of AI algorithms coupled with WSI in pre-implantation kidney biopsies were included. The main theme addressed was detection and quantification of tissue components. Extracted data were: author, year and country of the study, type of biopsy features investigated, number of cases, type of algorithm deployed, main results of the study in terms of diagnostic outcome, and the main limitations of the study.
RESULTS
Of 5761 retrieved articles, 7 met our inclusion criteria. All studies focused largely on AI-based detection and classification of glomerular structures and to a lesser extent on tubular and vascular structures. Performance of AI algorithms was excellent and promising.
CONCLUSION
All studies highlighted the importance of expert pathologist annotation to reliably train models and the need to acknowledge clinical nuances of the pre-implantation setting. Close cooperation between computer scientists and practicing as well as expert renal pathologists is needed, helping to refine the performance of AI-based models for routine pre-implantation kidney biopsy clinical practice.
Topics: Algorithms; Artificial Intelligence; Biopsy; Humans; Intelligence; Kidney
PubMed: 35441256
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-022-01327-8 -
BJS Open Mar 2022The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of margin definitions on median overall survival (OS).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting associations between resection margins and OS between 2010 and 2021. Data regarding margin status (R0 circumferential resection margin (CRM) negative (CRM-), R0 CRM positive (CRM+), R0 direct, and R1 and OS were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.
RESULTS
The full texts of 774 studies were screened. In total, 21 studies compromising 6056 patients were included in the final synthesis. In total, 188 (24 per cent) studies were excluded due to missing margin definitions. The R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.40 to 0.61) and the R0 (CRM-) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 0.47). R0 (CRM-) resection was independently associated with improved OS compared to combined R1 and R0 (CRM+; HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.56).
CONCLUSION
The revised R status was confirmed as an independent prognosticator compared to combined R0 (CRM+) and R1. The limited number of studies, non-standardized pathology protocols, and the varying number of margins assessed hamper comparability.
Topics: Humans; Margins of Excision; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis
PubMed: 35301513
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac010 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Sep 2022The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical...
BACKGROUND
The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.
RESULTS
In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10-30) and 23.5 cases (7-40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4-60) and 36.5 cases (20-80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon's experience and patient's demographic.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35278112
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02470-3 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2022The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.
CONCLUSION
EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 35246738
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09137-6