No abstract

No abstract

The impact of donor‐specific HLA alloantibodies (DSA) on short‐ and long‐term liver transplant outcome is not clearly defined. While it is clear that not all levels of allosensitization produce overt clinical injury, and that liver allografts possess some degree of alloantibody resistance, alloantibody‐mediated adverse consequences are increasingly being recognized. To better define the current state of this topic, we assembled experts to provide insights, explore controversies and develop recommendations for future research on the consequences of DSA in liver transplantation. This article summarizes the proceedings of this inaugural meeting. Several insights emerged. Acute antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR), although rarely diagnosed, is increasingly understood to overlap with T cell–mediated rejection. Isolated liver allograft recipients are at increased risk of early allograft immunologic injury when preformed DSA are high titer and persist posttransplantation. Persons who undergo simultaneous liver–kidney transplantation are at risk of renal AMR when Class II DSA persist posttransplantation. Other under‐appreciated DSA associations include ductopenia and fibrosis, plasma cell hepatitis, biliary strictures and accelerated fibrosis associated with recurrent liver disease. Standardized DSA testing and diagnostic criteria for both acute and chronic AMR are needed to distil existing associations into etiological processes in order to develop responsive therapeutic strategies.

Across the addictions field, the primary outcome in treatment research has been reduction in drug consumption. A comprehensive view of the impact of substance use disorders on human functioning suggests that effective treatments should address the many consequences and features of addiction beyond drug use, a recommendation forwarded by multiple expert panels and review articles. Despite recurring proposals, and a compelling general rationale for moving beyond drug use as the sole standard for evaluating addiction treatment, the field has yet to adopt any core set of “other” measures that are routinely incorporated into treatment research. Among the many reasons for the limited impact of previous proposals has been the absence of a clear set of guidelines for selecting candidate outcomes. This paper is the result of the deliberations of a panel of substance abuse treatment and research experts convened by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to discuss appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of substance abuse treatments. This paper provides an overview of previous recommendations and outlines specific guidelines for consideration of candidate outcomes. A list of outcomes meeting those guidelines is described and illustrated in detail with two outcomes: craving and quality of life. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for moving beyond the outcome listing offered in this paper to promote the programmatic incorporation of these outcomes into treatment research.

No abstract