The different choices of immunosuppression (IS) regimens influenced the outcomes of liver transplantation. Steroid was applied as a standard IS to prevent and treat rejections. However, steroid-related complications were increasingly prominent. This study compared the efficacy and safety of standard IS regimens with the efficacy and safety of steroid-free IS regimen and induction IS regimen in Chinese liver transplantation recipients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 329 patients who underwent liver transplantation from January 2008 to December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Three different groups of patients received standard triple-drug IS regimen of steroid, tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (triple-drug regimen group; n=57), induction-contained IS regimen of basiliximab, steroid, TAC and MMF (BS group; n=241), and induction-contained and steroid-free regimen of basiliximab, TAC and MMF (SF group; n=31), respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates. The acute rejection rate and rejection time were equivalent in different groups. But compared with BS group, higher incidences of biliary complications (11.52% vs. 30.77%, p=0.013) and graft dysfunction (0.48% vs. 13.64%, p=0.003) were observed in SF group. Furthermore, compared with the two groups, incidence of pleural effusion was also higher in SF group (15.79%, 11.96% vs. 45.45%, respectively, both p<0.01). And a trend towards less proportion of De novo diabetes was revealed in SF group. Although it was found that patient, tumor-free and graft survival rates were equivalent among three IS regimens, higher incidences of complications were demonstrated in steroid-free regimen in patients for HCC. These findings suggested that steroid-free IS regimen has no clear advantages in comparison with standard IS regimens for liver transplant recipients with HCC and the postoperative complications should be treated with concentrated attention.

ObjectivesBased on the important changes in South Africa since 2009 and the Antiretroviral Treatment Guideline 2013 recommendations, we explored the cost-effectiveness of different strategy combinations according to the South African HIV-infected mothers' prompt treatments and different feeding patterns.Study DesignA decision analytic model was applied to simulate cohorts of 10,000 HIV-infected pregnant women to compare the cost-effectiveness of two different HIV strategy combinations: (1) Women were tested and treated promptly at any time during pregnancy (Promptly treated cohort). (2) Women did not get testing or treatment until after delivery and appropriate standard treatments were offered as a remedy (Remedy cohort). Replacement feeding or exclusive breastfeeding was assigned in both strategies. Outcome measures included the number of infant HIV cases averted, the cost per infant HIV case averted, and the cost per life year(LY) saved from the interventions. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate the uncertainty ranges of all outcomes.ResultsThe remedy strategy does not particularly cost-effective. Compared with the untreated baseline cohort which leads to 1127 infected infants, 698 (61.93%) and 110 (9.76%) of pediatric HIV cases are averted in the promptly treated cohort and remedy cohort respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness of $68.51 and $118.33 per LY, respectively. With or without the antenatal testing and treatments, breastfeeding is less cost-effective ($193.26 per LY) than replacement feeding ($134.88 per LY), without considering the impact of willingness to pay.ConclusionCompared with the prompt treatments, remedy in labor or during the postnatal period is less cost-effective. Antenatal HIV testing and prompt treatments and avoiding breastfeeding are the best strategies. Although encouraging mothers to practice replacement feeding in South Africa is far from easy and the advantages of breastfeeding can not be ignored, we still suggest choosing replacement feeding as far as possible.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract