This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
To keep the transplantation community informed about recently published level 1 evidence in organ transplantation ESOT and the
Revisiting maintenance immunosuppression in patients with renal transplant failure: early weaning of immunosuppression versus prolonged maintenance-systematic review and meta-analysis.
This study aimed to evaluate whether early or late withdrawal of maintenance immunosuppression in patients with kidney transplant failure is linked with better outcomes.
Electronic databases including PubMed, WOS, Ovid, and Scopus databases were searched. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligiblity by four independent reviewers. Data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.
10 studies were included in the review.
The outcomes of interest were incidence of infection, cancer, mortality (infection-related, malignancy-related, cardiovascular-related), transplant nephrectomy, re-transplantation, panel reactive antibody (PRA) and admission to hospital.
Not applicable.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of continued immunosuppression in the patient with a failed kidney transplant. The authors identified 10 studies including 1,187 patients. There was no difference in overall survival, sensitisation, malignancy, infection or retransplant rates between patients who withdrew immunosuppression early or remained on maintenance immunosuppression. Review methodology appears good, with independent reference screening and searches across multiple databases. The majority of studies were retrospective cohorts with a risk of selection bias. Many meta-analyses included only 2 or 3 studies, with quite wide confidence intervals around estimated effect sizes and some degree of heterogeneity. It is possible, therefore, that a true effect could have been missed due to selection bias or lack of power.
Not applicable.
Not reported.
Impact of Octreotide on Early Complications After Liver Transplant: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.
This study aimed at investigating the role of octreotide on early outcomes following liver transplantation.
Participants were randomised to receive either octreotide or placebo.
50 patients who underwent deceased donor orthotopic liver transplantation.
The primary endpoint was renal function. The secondary endpoints were length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, rate of nosocomial infection, and rate of early allograft dysfunction (EAD).
16.4 days posttransplant.
This is a clear report of a randomised controlled study in liver transplantation. A prior power calculation was conducted, and the trial was therefore adequately powered. The method of randomisation was through allocation software. The trial is described as double-blinded; however, the trial drugs were provided in vials labelled as either “A” or “B.” This is unfortunately not as robust for maintaining blinding as having individual codes for every dose administered. The study found a significant reduction in AKI after liver transplantation when octreotide was administered. This was particularly for stage II AKI. As the diagnosis of AKI includes drop in urine output, this is not as robust as relying on serum markers alone. There was also a significant reduction in early allograft dysfunction with octreotide (16% versus 47%). The length of ICU stays, and total hospital stay were also reduced. It is speculated that all these effects are a result of improved renal perfusion and the anti-inflammatory effect of octreotide. A reduction in nosocomial infection was also seen with octreotide, but the mechanism of action for this is not clear.
5.
Strict intention-to-treat analysis.
Yes.
IRCT20190619043942N1.
Non-industry funded.
This is an interesting RCT in liver transplantation investigating the potential for octreotide infusion to reduce the risk of post-operative Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). The study was relatively small, with only 50 transplants included across both arms. However, the scale of the reduction in AKI was so great that a significant reduction was demonstrated with octreotide; The study group had a 20% risk of AKI compared to 44% in the control group. The difference was particularly evident in stage 2 AKI. There was also a significant reduction in early allograft dysfunction of a similar magnitude (16% versus 47%). A significant reduction in post-operative infections was also seen with octreotide, but the mechanism for this is not clear.
There are some concerns about the methodology that do weaken the strength of the conclusions though. For example, the use of vials marked as A or B can lead to the loss of allocation concealment, despite an otherwise acceptable method of randomisation.
Octreotide has some evidence base in ischaemia reperfusion injury for both liver and kidney, that may support the results seen in this study. However, the scale of the apparent benefit was really quite extreme in this study. As the study authors acknowledge, further studies are needed to really understand if this is a true effect of the intervention alone.
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.