Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) in combination with a potent nucleos(t)ide analog is considered the standard of care for prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus (HBV) reinfection after liver transplantation for HBV-associated disease.

To evaluate patients' satisfaction, preferences, and requirements for subcutaneous (SC), intramuscular (IM), and intravenous (IV) HBIG treatments.

A self-completion, cross-sectional, online, 22-question survey was conducted to examine perceptions and satisfaction with current HBIG treatment in adults receiving HBIG treatment following liver transplantation for HBV-associated disease in France, Italy, and Turkey. Hypothetical HBIG products with different administration modes were evaluated using target product profile assessment and a conjoint (trade-off) exercise.

Ninety patients were enrolled; 32%, 17%, and 51% were SC, IM, and IV HBIG users, respectively. Mean duration of treatment was 36.2 months. SC HBIG had the least negative impact on emotional well-being and social life and was perceived as the most convenient, easiest to administer, least painful, and had the highest self-rating of treatment compliance. More IM HBIG users than SC or IV HBIG users reported that administration frequency was excessive (67%, 28%, and 28%, respectively). In the target product profile assessment, 76% of patients were likely to use hypothetical SC HBIG. In the conjoint exercise, administration route, frequency, and duration were key drivers of treatment preferences.

Ease, frequency, duration, and side effects of HBIG treatment administration were key drivers of treatment preferences, and SC HBIG appeared advantageous over IM and IV HBIG for administration ease, convenience, and pain. A hypothetical SC HBIG product elicited a favorable response. Patient demographics, personal preferences, and satisfaction with HBIG treatment modalities may influence long-term treatment compliance.

These guidelines discuss the epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, posttransplant prophylaxis, monitoring, and management of endemic infections in solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates, recipients, and donors in South Asia. The guidelines also provide recommendations for SOT recipients traveling to this region. These guidelines are based on literature review and expert opinion by transplant physicians, surgeons, and infectious diseases specialists, mostly from South Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka) as well as transplant experts from other countries. These guidelines cover relevant endemic bacterial infections (tuberculosis, leptospirosis, melioidosis, typhoid, scrub typhus), viral infections (hepatitis A, B, C, D, and E; rabies; and the arboviruses including dengue, chikungunya, Zika, Japanese encephalitis), endemic fungal infections (mucormycosis, histoplasmosis, talaromycosis, sporotrichosis), and endemic parasitic infections (malaria, leishmaniasis, toxoplasmosis, cryptosporidiosis, strongyloidiasis, and filariasis) as well as travelers' diarrhea and vaccination for SOT candidates and recipients including travelers visiting this region. These guidelines are intended to be an overview of each topic; more detailed reviews are being published as a special supplement in the Indian Journal of Transplantation .

Tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are first-line treatments for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. However, the effect of TDF versus ETV on the prognosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been fully clarified yet.

PubMed, Embase and Web of science were searched up to March, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) to assess the effect of TDF versus ETV on the prognosis of HBV-related HCC.

A total of 10 studies comprising 4706 Asian patients were included. The pooled results revealed that TDF was associated with better OS (adjusted HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.40-0.62; I²=36.0%, p=0.167) and better RFS/DFS (adjusted HR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89, I²=71.9%, p=0.002) than ETV in treatment of HBV-related HCC. Subgroup analysis revealed that OS benefit from TDF was generally consistent, except for patients who underwent non-surgical treatment for HCC. Subgroup analysis also indicated that TDF reduces the risk of late recurrence (HR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.0.93; I²=63.0%, p=0.067) rather than early recurrence (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.64-1.52; I²=61.3%, p=0.076).

Compared with ETV, TDF has the advantage of improving OS and reducing late recurrence of patients with HBV-related HCC patients who underwent resection.

The combination of nucleoside analogs and long-term hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) is considered to be the standard regimen for preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after liver transplant (LT). However, long-term use of HBIG causes many adverse effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of nucleoside analogs entecavir combined with short-term HBIG in preventing HBV recurrence after LT.

This retrospective study assessed the effect a combination of entecavir and short-term HBIG in prophylaxis of HBV recurrence among 56 LT recipients who had undergone the procedure because of HBV-associated liver disease at our center between December 2017 and December 2021. All patients received entecavir treatment combined with HBIG for the prevention of hepatitis B recurrence, and HBIG treatment was withdrawn within 1 month. The patients were followed up to determine levels of hepatitis B surface antigen, antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAb), and HBV-DNA and the recurrence rate of HBV.

Only 1 patient appeared positive for hepatitis B surface antigen at 2 months post-LT. The overall HBV recurrence rate was 1.8%. The HBsAb titers of all patients gradually decreased over time, with a median of 376.6 IU/L at 1 month post-LT and a median of 13.47 IU/L at 12 months post-LT. During the follow-up period, the HBsAb titer of the preoperative HBV-DNA-positive patients remained at a lower level than that of HBV-DNA-negative patients.

Entecavir combined with short-term HBIG can exert a good effect for the prevention of HBV reinfection post-LT.

While outcomes after liver transplantation have increased over the last two decades, this is primarily as a consequence of a reduction in early deaths and survival of those who survive the first 6 months has not significantly changed. Causes of premature death and graft loss include cardiovascular disease, renal impairment, malignancy and some infections. As the number of transplant recipients increase, care is being given by primary and secondary care clinicians. Management of the well patient is crucially dependent on careful assessment and where appropriate intervention, especially of cardiovascular risk - such as advice about avoidance of weight gain; management of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes; and provision of appropriate lifestyle advice. Other interventions include surveillance for de novo malignancies, active management of immunosuppressive regimen with the need to tailor immunosuppression to the individual. Prompt investigation of abnormalities of liver function is essential. Immune-mediated graft damage still occurs but is less common as a cause for graft loss. Adherence is sometimes an issue, especially in teenagers and young adults, and should be considered and support given where needed. Immunisations (avoiding live and attenuated vaccines) should be encouraged. Recurrence of disease remains an issue, and some interventions (such as appropriate use of antiviral therapy for those grafted with viral hepatitis, use of ursodeoxycholic acid for those grafted for primary biliary cholangitis or long-term steroids for those grafted for autoimmune disease) may improve and maintain graft function. Close collaboration between recipient and the attending clinicians in primary, secondary and tertiary care and close attention to modifiable conditions will lead to improved outcomes.

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is a lifesaving therapy for patients with irreversible liver damage caused by autoimmune liver diseases (AutoD) including autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Currently, it is unclear how access to transplantation differs among patients with various etiologies of liver disease. Our aim is to evaluate the likelihood of transplant and the long-term patient and graft survival after OLT for each etiology for transplantation from 2000 to 2021. We conducted a large retrospective study of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) liver transplant patients in five 4-year eras with five cohorts: AutoD (PBC, PSC, AIH cirrhosis), alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), viral hepatitis, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We conducted a multivariate analysis for probability of transplant. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed to assess the 10-year survival differences for each listing diagnosis while accounting for both waitlist and post-transplant survival. Across all eras, autoimmune conditions had a lower adjusted probability of transplant of 0.92 (0.92, 0.93) compared to ALD 0.97 (0.97, 0.97), HCC 1.08 (1.07, 1.08), viral hepatitis 0.99 (0.99, 0.99), and NASH 0.99 (0.99, 1.00). Patients with AutoD had significantly better post-transplant patient and graft survival than ALD, HCC, viral hepatitis, and NASH in each and across all eras (p-values all < 0.001). Patients with AutoD had superior ITT survival (p-value < 0.001, log rank test). In addition, the waitlist survival for patients with AutoD compared to other listing diagnoses was improved with the exception of ALD, which showed no significant difference (p-value = 0.1056, log rank test). Despite a superior 10-year graft and patient survival in patients transplanted for AutoD, patients with AutoD have a significantly lower probability of receiving a liver transplant compared to those transplanted for HCC, ALD, viral hepatitis, and NASH. Patients with AutoD may benefit from improved liver allocation while maintaining superior waitlist and post-transplant survival. Decreased access in spite of appropriate outcomes for patients poses a significant risk for increased morbidity for patients with AutoD.