Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Among adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates, 21% are frail and 55% have cognitive impairment, increasing the risk of pre- and post-KT mortality. Centers often assess frailty status and cognitive function during transplant evaluation to help identify appropriate candidate. Yet, there are no ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during this evaluation. We seek to develop a clinical consensus on balancing utility and justice in access to KT for frail and cognitively impaired patients. METHODS:Twenty-seven experts caring for ESRD patients completed a two-round Delphi panel designed to facilitate consensus (> 80% agreement). RESULTS:Experts believed that denying patients transplantation based solely on expected patient survival was inequitable to frail or cognitively impaired candidates; 100% agreed that frailty and cognitive impairment are important factors to consider during KT evaluation. There was consensus that health related quality of life and social support are important to consider before waitlisting frail or cognitively impaired patients. Experts identified important factors to consider before waitlisting frail (likely to benefit from KT, frailty reversibility, age, and medical contraindications) and cognitively impaired (degree of impairment and medication adherence) patients. CONCLUSIONS:Clinical experts believed it was ethically unacceptable to allocate organs solely based on patients' expected survival; frailty and cognitive impairment should be measured at evaluation when weighed against other clinical factors. Ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during KT evaluation ought to be developed.

Background:Humoral responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are attenuated in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), necessitating additional booster vaccinations. The Omicron variant demonstrates substantial immune evasion, and it is unknown whether additional vaccine doses increase neutralizing capacity versus this variant of concern (VOC) among SOTRs. Methods:Within an observational cohort, 25 SOTRs with low seroresponse underwent anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike and receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin (Ig)G testing using a commercially available multiplex ELISA before and after a fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose (D4). Surrogate neutralization (percent angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 inhibition [%ACE2i], range 0%-100% with >20% correlating with live virus neutralization) was measured against full-length spike proteins of the vaccine strain and 5 VOCs including Delta and Omicron. Changes in IgG level and %ACE2i were compared using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results:Anti-receptor-binding domain and anti-spike seropositivity increased post-D4 from 56% to 84% and 68% to 88%, respectively. Median (interquartile range) anti-spike antibody significantly increased post-D4 from 42.3 (4.9-134.2) to 228.9 (1115.4-655.8) World Health Organization binding antibody units. %ACE2i (median [interquartile range]) also significantly increased against the vaccine strain (5.8% [0%-16.8%] to 20.6% [5.8%-45.9%]) and the Delta variant (9.1% [4.9%-12.8%] to 17.1% [10.3%-31.7%]), yet neutralization versus Omicron was poor, did not increase post-D4 (4.1% [0%-6.9%] to 0.5% [0%-5.7%]), and was significantly lower than boosted healthy controls. Conclusions:Although a fourth vaccine dose increases anti-spike IgG and neutralizing capacity against many VOCs, some SOTRs may remain at high risk for Omicron infection despite boosting. Thus, additional protective interventions or alternative vaccination strategies should be urgently explored.

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.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The development of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after kidney transplant remains a significant cause of posttransplant morbidity, graft loss, and mortality. Despite appropriate antiviral therapy, recipients without previous CMV exposure can currently be allocated a kidney from a donor with previous CMV infection (D+R-) which carries the greatest risk of posttransplant CMV infection and associated complications. Preferential placement of CMV D- organs in negative recipients (R-) has been shown to reduce the risk of viral infection and associated complications. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To assess the long-term survival and economic benefits of allocation policy reforms, a decision analytic model was constructed to compare receipt of CMV D- with CMV D+ organ in CMV R- recipients using data from transplant registry, Medicare claims, and pharmaceutical costs. Results/UNASSIGNED:For CMV R- patients, receipt of a CMV D- organ was associated with greater average survival (14.3 vs 12.6 years), superior quality-adjusted life years (12.6 vs 9.8), and lower costs ($529 512 vs $542 963). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a survival advantage for patients waiting as long as 30 months for a CMV D- kidney. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Altering national allocation policy to preferentially offer CMV D- organs to CMV R- recipients could improve survival and lower costs after transplant if appropriately implemented.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Frailty is a well-established risk factor for poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT), but whether it predicts outcomes among those who have undergone LT is unknown. APPROACH AND RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Adult LT recipients from 8 US centers (2012-2019) were included. Pre-LT frailty was assessed in the ambulatory setting using the Liver Frailty Index (LFI). "Frail" was defined by an optimal cut point of LFI ≥ 4.5. We used the 75th percentile to define "prolonged" post-LT length of stay (LOS; ≥12 days), intensive care unit (ICU) days (≥4 days), and inpatient days within 90 post-LT days (≥17 days). Of 1166 LT recipients, 21% were frail pre-LT. Cumulative incidence of death at 1 and 5 years was 6% and 16% for frail and 4% and 10% for nonfrail patients (overall log-rank p = 0.02). Pre-LT frailty was associated with an unadjusted 62% increased risk of post-LT mortality (95% CI, 1.08-2.44); after adjustment for body mass index, HCC, donor age, and donation after cardiac death status, the HR was 2.13 (95% CI, 1.39-3.26). Patients who were frail versus nonfrail experienced a higher adjusted odds of prolonged LT LOS (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.47-2.73), ICU stay (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.14), inpatient days within 90 post-LT days (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.37), and nonhome discharge (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.58-3.97). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with nonfrail patients, frail LT recipients had a higher risk of post-LT death and greater post-LT health care utilization, although overall post-LT survival was acceptable. These data lay the foundation to investigate whether targeting pre-LT frailty will improve post-LT outcomes and reduce resource utilization.