Recurrence of autoimmune liver diseases after liver transplantation: Review and expert opinion statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autoimmune liver diseases (AILDs) constitute the fourth most common indication for liver transplantation (LT) across the world. In general, the outcomes after LT are acceptable; however, disease recurrence after LT is common for all AILD, which can negatively affect graft and overall survival. Several questions persist, including the risk factors associated with recurrent disease, optimal antirejection medications, strategies to reduce the risk of recurrence, and how to best incorporate these strategies into clinical practice. For that reason, we assembled an international group of experts to review evidence to address these outstanding questions regarding LT for AILD. Survival rates after LT are ~90% and 70% at 1 and 5 years, and recurrent disease occurs in 10%-50% of patients with AILD. In patients with disease recurrence, graft survival decreased by 18% and 28% and overall survival by 8% and 12% at 5 and 10 years after LT, respectively. Recurrent autoimmune hepatitis is associated with high aminotransferases and immunoglobulin G (IgG) before LT, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates in the explants, and may be associated with the absence of steroids after LT. However, the efficiency and safety of triple immunosuppressive maintenance therapy is still debatable. Younger age at diagnosis with primary biliary cholangitis or LT is associated with primary biliary cholangitis recurrence. Preventive use of ursodeoxycholic acid reduces the risk of recurrence and has a benefit in graft and patient survival. Episodes of systemic inflammation, including T-cell-mediated rejection, active ulcerative colitis, and episodes of cholangitis, are associated with recurrent PSC. Recurrent disease for AILD is associated with worse graft and patient survival. Patients with autoimmune hepatitis could be considered for long-term low-dose predniso(lo)ne, whereas patients with primary biliary cholangitis should be placed on preventive ursodeoxycholic acid after LT. There are no specific treatments for PSC recurrence; however, adequate control of inflammatory bowel disease and optimal immunosuppression to avoid T-cell-mediated rejection should be encouraged.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".