View clinical trials related to Liver Transplantation.
Filter by:There are not enough donated livers for everybody who needs one, and as a result, thousands of patients worldwide are waiting for liver transplants, with many dying while waiting for a life-saving organ. One reason for this shortage is that some usable livers from donors who are considered of high risk are being thrown away out of concern that they might not work well after transplantation due to a problem called ischaemia reperfusion injury (IRI). The discarded organs are mostly those coming from donors who have died due to cardiac arrest (called 'donation after circulatory death' or DCD), with only 27% of them being used in the UK. The quality of these DCD organs could be improved by changing how they are preserved after being removed from the donor. The most commonly used strategy is still to remove the livers and put them in an icebox ('static cold storage' or SCS). The alternative approaches, which are more complex and expensive, but that can also improve the quality of the DCD livers, involve using machines to pump fluids through the livers ('machine perfusion' or MP). There are three MP methods being used in patients: 1) normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), which involves pumping the donor's blood through the liver after the donor has died but the liver is still in the donor's body; 2) normothermic machine perfusion (NMP), in which the liver is pumped with blood outside of the donor's body; and 3) hypothermic machine perfusion (HOPE), which is also used outside of the donor's body by pumping cold fluid into the liver. HOPE and NRP have been shown to improve how well DCD livers function after transplantation. NMP can also improve the quality of the DCD livers, but its main advantage is that it allows confirming that the donated liver functions well before proceeding with the transplant. Until now, there has not been a proper comparison of these methods, and the doctors do not understand well the mechanisms through which MP improves the quality of the DCD livers. The iInvestigators plan to conduct a study where 36 DCD human livers will be split into three groups: SCS, NRP, and HOPE. After that, they will be put in NMP to confirm that they are good enough to be transplanted and to study the mechanisms through which NRP, SCS and HOPE work.
Intraoperative cell salvage is commonly used in surgeries that carry a major hemorrhagic risk to reduce the administration of allogeneic red blood cells and thus improve the outcome for the patient. When processing the salvaged blood, however, a large part of the patient's plasma is washed out. This is a disadvantage with regard to an optimal coagulation status after these types of surgeries, especially liver transplantation. There are currently various cell saver systems on the market. According to the manufacturers, the plasma is returned to the patient in different quantities as part of the processing procedure. Thus, it can be assumed that in addition to red blood cells, platelets (part of plasma) are re-transfused and contribute to an optimized coagulation. Unfortunately, there is a lack of studies in this regard in the liver transplant surgery population. The investigators aim to study the performance of two different cell saver devices regarding preservation of platelet number and function.
the purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the intensive care unit diary for intensive care unit liver transplant recipients.
World Health Organization considers non-adherence has a strong negative impact on the health of patients with chronic diseases. In transplantation, adherence to immunosuppressive drug regimens associates with late rejection and graft loss making it a critical determinant of patient outcome. The prevalence of non-adherence in transplant patients, including liver transplant patients, can be as high as 40%. Among others, life-long intake and complexity of immunosuppressive regimen make patients prone to non-adherence. For instance, non-adherence is more prevalent among patients with higher numbers of immunosuppressive drugs. One of the most commonly cited causes of non-adherence is forgetfulness and disruptions in routine, with the evening dose of twice daily regimens being the most likely to be affected6. Besides non-adherence, the constraints generated in everyday life by immunosuppression (including timely and regular drug intake) and the complexity of the immunosuppressive regimens represent a burden for the patients and are probably associated with a health-related quality of life deterioration. Therefore, long-term adherence and quality of life after liver transplantation might be improved by using a well-tolerated and easy-to-handle immunosuppressive regimen. The immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation is in most cases based on different combinations of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids. While corticosteroids are administered once daily, tacrolimus can be administered either twice-daily (BID) as an immediate-release, or once-daily (QD) as an extended-release formulation. Among once-daily tacrolimus formulations, LCP-tacrolimus (ENVARSUS XR®) is approved for the prevention of transplant rejection in adult liver allograft recipients. It has demonstrated similar outcomes compared to immediate-release tacrolimus BID, in both kidney and liver transplantation. Mycophenolate has only been approved for BID administration, preventing from taking all immunosuppressive drugs once daily. Yet, single daily dosing would probably contribute to better adherence and quality of life in patients receiving a life-long treatment. Although the half-life of mycophenolic acid (MPA), the active moiety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is compatible with once-daily administration, no published randomized clinical study has ever evaluated the efficacy and safety of MMF administered QD. The narrow therapeutic index and wide pharmacokinetic variability of tacrolimus and mycophenolate justify individual dose adjustment by means of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), in order to minimize the risk of acute rejection and the occurrence of adverse events. For tacrolimus, TDM is generally based on the trough concentration (C0) and sometimes on the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), while for mycophenolate it should be based on the AUC of MPA. However, the dose adjustment of MMF in liver transplant patients is most of the time performed a posteriori, based on clinical signs of inefficacy of toxicity. Limited sampling strategies with maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation have been developed by our team for both molecules in adult liver transplant patients to estimate their AUC, which is considered the best marker of exposure for both. Therefore, tacrolimus AUC0-24h can be estimated by Bayesian estimation using samples collected before administration (C0), 8 (C8h) and 12 (C12h) hours after the administration of ENVARSUS XR®, or 1 and 3 hours after the administration of PROGRAF® and ADVAGRAF®. For mycophenolate, the MPA AUC can be estimated using samples collected 20 min, 1 and 3 hours after MMF administration, by Bayesian estimation. Even if limited to 2 or 3 blood samples, tacrolimus TDM for ENVARSUS® requires late sampling (12h post-dose). To overcome the necessity of a longer hospital stay, microsampling devices (MSD) such as the Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS®) device (Mitra®) can be used by the patients to take samples themselves, at home. Moreover, they are less invasive than venipuncture and collect low but accurate volumes of blood for analysis. In this context, we propose a randomized controlled non-inferiority study to demonstrate that in liver transplant recipients, an immunosuppressive strategy based on single daily doses of LCP-tacrolimus (ENVARSUS XR®) and mycophenolate mofetil (CELLCEPT®) started at M6 post-transplantation is not inferior to XR-tacrolimus (ADVAGRAF®) and MMF administered BID, in terms of incidence of treatment failure (see below) at the end of the first year after transplantation, and to obtain adherence, quality of life and safety data. In order to compare solely MMF QD to MMF BID, patients on ENVARSUS XR® and MMF QD will be compared to a third group of patients receiving ENVARSUS XR® and MMF BID. A direct comparison of efficacy and safety, quality of life, adherence and exposure indices will be performed between ENVARSUS XR® and ADVAGRAF®.
The study is part of the MACROLIVER Project, whose main objective is to create a digital tool for patients and caregivers for the management of liver disease that allows the optimization of therapy and/or the treatment process, even remotely. Such a tool not only reduces the movement of patients who are by definition fragile, but also enables the optimization of access and care by a multidisciplinary team. This tool is intended to support doctors and patients, but in no way replaces normal clinical practice. This study aims to explore the specificities of patients experiencing the transition from the pediatric ward to the adult ward in order to identify risk and protective factors that influence psychological well-being at both an individual and relational level. In order to gather all the information about the patients attending the transitional clinic and to obtain a more complete and truthful clinical-psychological picture, the study also includes the collection of retrospective data of the transplanted patients.
Context Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a frequent and potentially severe event in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Most of available treatment display adverse effects that limit their use. Therefore, in case of an infection, it is of primary importance to identify the patients at high risk of severe infection and/or disease, and who ill benefit the most from antiviral therapy. As CMV infection is mainly controlled by cellular immunity, measuring specific anti-CMV T lymphocyte immunity could be an interesting tool for identifying these at-risk individuals. One of these tests is the QuantiFERON-CMV (QF-CMV) assay (QuiagenTM, Courtabœuf, France). Aim of the study The aim of the study is to determine the extent to which the QF-CMV can be use to identify, among SOT recipients with a CMV viremia, those that may not need antiviral therapy. Methods Participation to the study will be proposed to SOT recipients with an asymptomatic CMV infection with a blood viral load between 1,000 and 15,000 IU/mL. The QF-CMV will be performed in included participants, and the result will be given or not to the clinician in charge (according to the attributed group through randomisation). - In the group without result communication, the clinician in charge will determine whether a treatment is needed according to the guidelines and the local practices. - in the group with result communication, the clinician in charge will be advised not to introduce antiviral therapy if the result is positive, and to determine whether a treatment is needed according to the guidelines and the local practices if the result is positive. In the following weeks, the viral load will be monitored, along with creatininemia, cell blood count, and kalemia (to detect antiviral adverse effect). The participants will be sampled: - 5 to 12 days after QF-CMV sampling (V2) ; - 7 to 14 days days after V2 (V3 - between D12 and D26) ; - 7 to 14 days days after V3 (V4 - between D19 and D40) . Endpoints The primary endpoint is the rate of uncontrolled infection 5 to 12 days after QF-CMV sampling, defined as follows: - Blood CMV viral load >10,000 IU/mL [4 log]; - And/or increase in blood viral load ≥0.5 log IU/mL with CV otherwise >5000 IU/mL; - And/or the onset of CMV disease. The secondary endpoint is the is the occurrence antiviral adverse effects (hematoxicity or nephrotoxicity).
The "no-touch" technique has been one of the most important principles of oncological surgery and aimed to prevent seeding and tumor cell dissemination. Previous studies in hepatectomy have shown that no-touch technique surgery can reduce HCC recurrence and improve the survival of patients. However, there is no consensus on whether the no-touch technique in LT for HCC improves the outcomes. This study aims to prospectively include liver transplant patients from multiple transplant centers, collecting their pre-transplant clinical information, post-transplant pathological records and exploring and clarify the correlation between "no-touch" technique and the prognosis of LT patients.
As key biomarkers in HCC, AFP and PIVKA-II reflects biological features of tumor and has been widely applied for clinical diagnosis. Previous studies reported preoperative AFP and PIVKA-II are related to HCC recipient long-term survival after liver transplantation. However, there is no prospective study supporting these conclusions. This study aims to prospective collect liver transplantation cases from multiple transplant centers and further evaluate the prognostic role of preoperative AFP and PIVKA-II in liver transplantation for HCC.
Liver transplant surgery is one of the treatments provided to patients suffering from end-stage liver disease, and has a successful treatment prognosis. However, it is clear that patient management before, during, and after surgery is a difficult task for medical staff due to the complex clinical and pathological problems of end-stage liver disease. Moreover, the complex surgical technique of the liver transplant surgery itself and the severe hemodynamic fluctuations and multi-organ dysfunction that patients experience during the surgery have been shown to have a tremendous impact on the patient's prognosis after surgery. A study on which clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic factors experienced by patients during the perioperative period, including before, during, and after surgery, affect the survival rate of patients and transplanted organs. will definitely be helpful in the treatment of patients suffering from end-stage liver disease.
Solid Organ Transplantation (SOT) is made possible by the use of a lifelong immunosuppressive treatment. This treatment limits the response of the immune system, enabling long-term survival of the transplanted organ, but also leading to weaker anti-infectious responses. In this study, we will compare the response to a booster Hepatitis B vaccination (HBV) in SOT patients, either after kidney or liver transplantation. We will also compare the immune response depending on the immunosuppressive treatment. In order to provide a detailed picture of the immune response, we will investigate the usual serological response (anti-HBs antibodies), but also the cellular memory (both T and B) using ELISpot assays and flow-cytometry, over a 6 months period following booster vaccination.