Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant (KT) candidates with HIV face higher mortality on the waitlist compared with candidates without HIV. Because the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act has expanded the donor pool to allow donors with HIV (D+), it is crucial to understand whether this has impacted transplant rates for this population. METHODS:Using a linkage between the HOPE in Action trial (NCT03500315) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 324 candidates listed for D+ kidneys (HOPE) compared with 46 025 candidates not listed for D+ kidneys (non-HOPE) at the same centers between April 26, 2018, and May 24, 2022. We characterized KT rate, KT type (D+, false-positive [FP; donor with false-positive HIV testing], D- [donor without HIV], living donor [LD]) and quantified the association between HOPE enrollment and KT rate using multivariable Cox regression with center-level clustering; HOPE was a time-varying exposure. RESULTS:HOPE candidates were more likely male individuals (79% versus 62%), Black (73% versus 35%), and publicly insured (71% versus 52%; P < 0.001). Within 4.5 y, 70% of HOPE candidates received a KT (41% D+, 34% D-, 20% FP, 4% LD) versus 43% of non-HOPE candidates (74% D-, 26% LD). Conversely, 22% of HOPE candidates versus 39% of non-HOPE candidates died or were removed from the waitlist. Median KT wait time was 10.3 mo for HOPE versus 60.8 mo for non-HOPE candidates (P < 0.001). After adjustment, HOPE candidates had a 3.30-fold higher KT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval, 2.14-5.10; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Listing for D+ kidneys within HOPE trials was associated with a higher KT rate and shorter wait time, supporting the expansion of this practice for candidates with HIV.

The HIV latent viral reservoir (LVR) remains a major challenge in the effort to find a cure for HIV. There is interest in lymphocyte-depleting agents, used in solid organ and bone marrow transplantation to reduce the LVR. This study evaluated the LVR and T cell receptor repertoire in HIV-infected kidney transplant recipients using intact proviral DNA assay and T cell receptor sequencing in patients receiving lymphocyte-depleting or lymphocyte-nondepleting immunosuppression induction therapy. CD4+ T cells and intact and defective provirus frequencies decreased following lymphocyte-depleting induction therapy but rebounded to near baseline levels within 1 year after induction. In contrast, these biomarkers were relatively stable over time in the lymphocyte-nondepleting group. The lymphocyte-depleting group had early TCRβ repertoire turnover and newly detected and expanded clones compared with the lymphocyte-nondepleting group. No differences were observed in TCRβ clonality and repertoire richness between groups. These findings suggest that, even with significant decreases in the overall size of the circulating LVR, the reservoir can be reconstituted in a relatively short period of time. These results, while from a relatively unique population, suggest that curative strategies aimed at depleting the HIV LVR will need to achieve specific and durable levels of HIV-infected T cell depletion.

BACKGROUND:Organ transplantation from donors with HIV to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV+ donors is critical for safety. METHODS:We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) testing within the HOPE in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262; NCT03500315; NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV+ versus FP donors. We measured CD4+ T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), co-receptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection using mass spectrometry in HIV+ donors. RESULTS:Between 03/2016-03/2020, 92 donors (58 HIV+, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidney, 46 liver). Each year the number of donors increased. Prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs. 0%), syphilis (16% vs. 0%), and cytomegalovirus (91% vs. 58%) was higher in HIV+ versus FP donors; hepatitis C viremia was similar (2% vs. 6%). Most HIV+ donors (71%) had known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had VL<400 copies/mL. Median CD4 count was 194 cells/uL (IQR=77-331); median CD4% was 27.0 (IQR=16.8-36.1). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI, 4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Utilization of HIV+ donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise INSTI-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety.

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

We represent a group of investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01AI120938, U01AI134591, U01AI138897) to conduct a prospective multicenter study of the landscape of HIV-infected (HIV+) donors and two prospective multicenter trials comparing outcomes between HIV+ recipients of HIV+ and non-HIV+ donor kidneys and livers. These clinical trials are ongoing (NCT02602262, NCT03500315, NCT03734393).

Relevance: Strategies to improve efficiency in the NHS are high on the current political agenda. The increasing complexity of patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a tertiary referral centre is thought to have led to an increased Length of Stay (LOS). Previous research has looked at complicated predictive models for TKA LOS and we therefore developed a simple model, using preoperative Oxford scores and the patients age, to predict LOS in both a TKA and THA cohort - the Stanmore Length of Stay (S-LOS) tool. To our knowledge there are no prospective studies measuring the effectiveness of such a model.
Purpose(s): The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the accuracy of the S-LOS tool in predicting LOS stay following a TKA or THA. Methods/analysis: Demographic data (age and preoperative Oxford Scores) were collected for patients undergoing a TKA or THA at a tertiary referral centre between the 4th April 2015 and 12th February 2016. Demographic and LOS data was obtained on 380 patients (239 TKA, 141 THA). Data was used to predict the S-LOS predicted LOS and compared to the current prediction model (TKA = 5 days, THA= 4 days) for accuracy. All data was analysed using SPSS v23. All data met parametric assumptions. The independent t-test was used to assess the differences between S-LOS to actual LOS, and current predicted LOS to actual LOS.
Result(s): S-LOS score had a lower difference from actual LOS (total difference = 188 days, mean difference per patient = 0.49 days, SD = 4.02) than the current prediction model (total difference = 516 days, mean difference per patient = 1.36 days, SD = 3.61). The mean difference (0.87 days) between the two groups was statistically significant (t = 3.195 (779.094); p = 0.001). The standardised effect size (d) was 0.23 (small effect). The 95% confidence interval showed that the population mean difference is likely to fall between 0.34 days and 1.41 days. From a cost perspective, based on a rate of 243 per day, this equates to a mean value 80,336 [95% CI 31,396-130,199]. Discussion and conclusions: The S-LOS tool was statistically more accurate in predicting actual LOS compared to the current LOS model used at a tertiary referral centre. Further prospective studies are required to assess whether more accurate LOS predictions using the S-LOS tool facilitate earlier discharge from hospital. Impact and implications: Increased hospital stay and surgical cancellations due to lack of bed spaces cost time and money for the NHS. Each extended hospital stay costs the NHS in excess of 240 per day. Accurate prediction of LOS may facilitate LOS planning, promote timely discharge, and improve patient experience and the cost effectiveness of services. Furthermore, tool such as this could be utilised to identify these at risk patients and to guide the utilisation of other services, such as prehabilitation, to optimise post-operative length of stay. The S-LOS tool has been prospectively tested, and is accurate at predicting LOS for patients undergoing TKA or THA

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 2006, the Institute of Medicine emphasized substantial potential to expand organ donation opportunities through uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD). We pilot an out-of-hospital uDCDD kidney program for New York City in partnership with communities that it was intended to benefit. We evaluate protocol process and outcomes while identifying barriers to success and means for improvement. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, participatory action research study in Manhattan from December 2010 to May 2011. Daily from 4 to 12 pm, our organ preservation unit monitored emergency medical services (EMS) frequencies for cardiac arrests occurring in private locations. After EMS providers independently ordered termination of resuscitation, organ preservation unit staff determined clinical eligibility and donor status. Authorized parties, persons authorized to make organ donation decisions, were approached about in vivo preservation. The study population included organ preservation unit staff, authorized parties, passersby, and other New York City agency personnel. Organ preservation unit staff independently documented shift activities with daily operations notes and teleconference summaries that we analyzed with mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The organ preservation unit entered 9 private locations; all the deceased lacked previous registration, although 4 met clinical screening eligibility. No kidneys were recovered. We collected 837 notes from 35 organ preservation unit staff. Despite frequently recounting protocol breaches, most responses from passersby including New York City agencies were favorable. No authorized parties were offended by preservation requests, yielding a Bayesian posterior median 98% (95% credible interval 76% to 100%). CONCLUSION: In summary, the New York City out-of-hospital uDCDD program was not feasible. There were frequent protocol breaches and confusion in determining clinical eligibility. In the small sample of authorized persons we encountered during the immediate grieving period, negative reactions were infrequent.

In the United States, when people die unexpectedly, they are usually not considered as organ donors because of the difficulty of keeping organs viable when death occurs outside the hospital, in "uncontrolled" circumstances. New protocols to permit donation in these cases have renewed the debate about how we decide whether a person has died- and whether the moral imperative to help those in need of transplant should affect the determination of death.

Evidence from Europe suggests establishing out-of-hospital, uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (UDCDD) protocols has potential to substantially increase organ availability. The study objective was to derive an out-of-hospital UDCDD protocol that would be acceptable to New York City (NYC) residents. Participatory action research and the SEED-SCALE process for social change guided protocol development in NYC from July 2007 to September 2010. A coalition of government officials, subject experts and communities necessary to achieve support was formed. Authorized NY State and NYC government officials and their legal representatives collaboratively investigated how the program could be implemented under current law and regulations. Community stakeholders (secular and religious organizations) were engaged in town hall style meetings. Ethnographic data (meeting minutes, field notes, quantitative surveys) were collected and posted in a collaborative internet environment. Data were analyzed using an iterative coding scheme to discern themes, theoretical constructs and a summary narrative to guide protocol development. A clinically appropriate, ethically sound UDCDD protocol for out-of-hospital settings has been derived. This program is likely to be accepted by NYC residents since the protocol was derived through partnership with government officials, subject experts and community participants