The optimal level of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation, in particular for the liver, is a delicate balance between the benefit of preventing rejection and the adverse side effects of immunosuppression. There is uncertainty about when this level is achieved in any individual recipient. Immunosuppression regimens vary between individual centers and changes with time as new agents and data are available. Presently concerns about the adverse side effects of calcineurin inhibitor, the main class of immunosuppressive agents used in liver transplantation (LT), has led to consideration of the use of antibody induction therapies for patients at higher risk of developing adverse side effects. The longevity of the transplanted organ is potentially improved by better management of rejection episodes and special consideration for tailoring of immunosuppression to the individual with viral hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma or pregnancy. This review provides an overview of the current strategies for post LT immunosuppression and discusses modifications to consider for special patient populations.

Liver transplantation is curative, life saving or both for a range of inherited diseases affecting the liver. Indications, timing and outcome of transplantation for these diseases are the focus of this review. Liver transplant represents a mode of gene replacement therapy for several disorders, including Wilson disease, hemochromatosis, tyrosinemia, urea cycle defects and hypercholesterolemia in which the primary defect residing in the liver results in hepatic complications or severe extrahepatic disease. Liver transplant is also an important therapeutic modality in multisystemic genetic disorders with major hepatic disease such as glycogen storage disease types I, III and IV and porphyria. For familial amyloidosis and primary hyperoxaluria, liver replacement eliminates the source of the injurious products that results in extrahepatic disease. Innovations in medical and surgical management of these patients have led to improved outcomes providing an important benchmark for future gene therapy of these disorders. Recent developments have refined the indications for liver transplant in the treatment of inherited metabolic diseases. The full potential of liver transplant in these disorders can be harnessed by careful patient selection, optimizing timing and perioperative metabolic management of these patients.

With the growing number of patients in need of liver transplantation, there is a need for adopting new and modifying existing allocation policies that prioritize patients for liver transplantation. Policy should ensure fair allocation that is reproducible and strongly predictive of best pre and post transplant outcomes while taking into account the natural history of the potential recipients liver disease and its complications. There is wide acceptance for allocation policies based on urgency in which the sickest patients on the waiting list with the highest risk of mortality receive priority. Model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scoring system, the two most universally applicable systems are used in urgency-based prioritization. However, other factors must be considered to achieve optimal allocation. Factors affecting pre-transplant patient survival and the quality of the donor organ also affect outcome. The optimal system should have allocation prioritization that accounts for both urgency and transplant outcome. We reviewed past and current liver allocation systems with the aim of generating further discussion about improvement of current policies.

Chronic kidney disease is a worldwide health problem. Type II diabetes mellitus is now a major cause of end stage renal disease. The effect of diabetes mellitus through the dysregulation of the innate immunity results in increased tumor necrosis factor-α. This can lead to an increasing protein trafficking through the glomerular capillary, which can have an intrinsic renal toxicity. Seventy-four patients with type II diabetes mellitus with overt proteinuria were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to two groups of 37 patients (group 1: captopril 25 mg three times a day, group 2: captopril 25 mg and pentoxifylline 400 mg each three times per day). In the course of the study, two patients were excluded from each group. Daily urinary protein excretion was assessed at baseline and at two and six months. The reduction of urinary protein to creatinine clearance ratio in group 2 was 15.16 points more than in group 1 from baseline to the end of the study (p = 0.001). The difference in reduction only started after two months of pentoxifylline use. The differences in HbA1c and duration of diabetes mellitus at baseline in the two groups had not adversely affected the outcome of the study. There was a modest decrease in systolic blood pressure in group 2 as well (p = 0.041). Combining an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and pentoxifylline can lead to a greater reduction in proteinuria.