Kidney transplantation is currently the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney diseases. Although significant advancements in kidney transplantation have been achieved over the past decades, the host’s immune response remains the primary challenge, often leading to potential graft rejection. Effective management of the immune response is essential to ensure the long-term success of kidney transplantation. To address this issue, immunosuppressives have been developed and are now fully integrated into the clinical management of transplant recipients. However, the considerable inter- and intra-patient variability in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of these drugs represents the primary cause of graft rejection. This variability is primarily attributed to the polymorphic nature (genetic heterogeneity) of genes encoding xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes, transport proteins, and, in some cases, drug targets. These genetic differences can influence drug metabolism and distribution, leading to either toxicity or reduced efficacy. The main objective of the present review is to report an historical overview of the pharmacogenetics of immunosuppressants, shedding light on the most recent findings and also suggesting how relevant is the research and investment in developing validated NGS-based commercial panels for pharmacogenetic profiling in kidney transplant recipients. These advancements will enable the implementation of precision medicine, optimizing immunosuppressive therapies to improve graft survival and kidney transplanted patient outcomes.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be performed ab initio, primary liver transplantation (PLT), or for HCC recurrence after previous treatments such as liver resection (LR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA), salvage liver transplantation (SLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological outcomes of SLT vs. PLT. For this, a retrospective study was carried out on patients undergoing liver transplantation for HCC. The outcomes of PLT were compared with those of SLT. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and major postoperative complications. A sub-analysis of SLT-LR and SLT-RFA was also performed. In total, 141 patients were included: 96 underwent PLT and 45 SLT. Among the SLT group, 25 patients had undergone previous LR while 20 had had RFA. There were no differences in the major postoperative complications. Unadjusted DFS was significantly longer in the PLT group (p = 0.02), as were OS (p = 0.025) and CSS (p = 0.001). There was no difference in DFS between PLT and SLT-LR groups, while a significant difference was found between the PLT and SLT-RFA groups (p = 0.035). Nonetheless, DFS was no different between the SLT-LR and SLT-RFA groups. PLT appears to offer superior long-term oncological outcomes to SLT. Both SLT-LR and SLT-RFA offer acceptable OS and CSS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results, but the re-direction of grafts and transplant philosophy towards PLT rather than SLT may need to be considered.