Efficacy and Safety of Immunosuppression Withdrawal in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients: Moving Toward Personalized Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tolerance is transplantation's holy grail, as it denotes allograft health without immunosuppression and its toxicities. Our aim was to determine, among stable long-term pediatric liver transplant recipients, the efficacy and safety of immunosuppression withdrawal to identify operational tolerance. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter, single-arm trial of immunosuppression withdrawal over 36-48 weeks. Liver tests were monitored biweekly (year 1), monthly (year 2), and bimonthly (years 3-4). For-cause biopsies were done at investigators' discretion but mandated when alanine aminotransferase or gamma glutamyltransferase exceeded 100 U/L. All subjects underwent final liver biopsy at trial end. The primary efficacy endpoint was operational tolerance, defined by strict biochemical and histological criteria 1 year after stopping immunosuppression. Among 88 subjects (median age 11 years; 39 boys; 57 deceased donor grafts), 33 (37.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 27.4%, 48.5%) were operationally tolerant, 16 were nontolerant by histology (met biochemical but failed histological criteria), and 39 were nontolerant by rejection. Rejection, predicted by subtle liver inflammation in trial entry biopsies, typically (n = 32) occurred at ≤32% of the trial-entry immunosuppression dose and was treated with corticosteroids (n = 32) and/or tacrolimus (n = 38) with resolution (liver tests within 1.5 times the baseline) for all but 1 subject. No death, graft loss, or chronic, severe, or refractory rejection occurred. Neither fibrosis stage nor the expression level of a rejection gene set increased over 4 years for either tolerant or nontolerant subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppression withdrawal showed that 37.5% of selected pediatric liver-transplant recipients were operationally tolerant. Allograft histology did not deteriorate for either tolerant or nontolerant subjects. The timing and reversibility of failed withdrawal justifies future trials exploring the efficacy, safety, and potential benefits of immunosuppression minimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".