4.6 Article

Changes in Utilization and Discard of Hepatitis C-Infected Donor Livers in the Recent Era

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 519-527

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13976

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [K24DK101828, F30DK095545]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [K24DA034621]
  3. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [K23CA177321]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of interferon (IFN)-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments on utilization and outcomes associated with HCV-positive deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is largely unknown. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 25 566 HCV-positive DDLT recipients from 2005 to 2015 and compared practices according to the introduction of DAA therapies using modified Poisson regression. The proportion of HCV-positive recipients who received HCV-positive livers increased from 6.9% in 2010 to 16.9% in 2015. HCV-positive recipients were 61% more likely to receive an HCV-positive liver after 2010 (early DAA/IFN era) (aRR:(1.45)1.61(1.79), p < 0.001) and almost three times more likely to receive one after 2013 (IFN-free DAA era) (aRR:(2.58)2.85(3.16), p < 0.001). Compared to HCV-negative livers, HCV-positive livers were 3 times more likely to be discarded from 2005 to 2010 (aRR:(2.69)2.99(3.34), p < 0.001), 2.2 times more likely after 2010 (aRR:(1.80)2.16(2.58), p < 0.001) and 1.7 times more likely after 2013 (aRR:(1.37)1.68(2.04), p < 0.001). Donor HCV status was not associated with increased risk of all-cause graft loss (p = 0.1), and this did not change over time (p = 0.8). Use of HCV-positive livers has increased dramatically, coinciding with the advent of DAAs. However, the discard rate remains nearly double that of HCV-negative livers. Further optimization of HCV-positive liver utilization is necessary to improve access for all candidates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据