Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) who underwent lung transplant (LT) at a transplant center with an accredited Cystic Fibrosis Care Center (CFCC) in the United States. METHODS:We reviewed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for all adult patients with CF who received a first-time LT from 2005 to 2018. The primary outcome was graft failure. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted multilevel Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes in CF patients undergoing lung transplantation at a CFCC. RESULTS:2,573 patients with CF underwent a first time LT during the study period. Of the 68 lung transplantation centers, 50 were CFCCs (73.5%). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients who underwent lung transplantation at a hospital with an accredited CFCC had a 33% reduction in risk of death or re-transplantation compared to those transplanted at a hospital without an accredited CFCC (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:People with CF who undergo LT at a transplant center with a CFCC have improved graft survival and decreased need for re-transplantation compared to those who undergo LT at a non-CFCC, independent of volume.

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, _2.34 3.32_4.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, _1.70 2.51_3.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, _2.77 3.95_5.63 ; top 5 offers, _3.90 4.39_4.95 ; top 10 offers, _4.85 5.30_5.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], _0.68 0.77_0.88 ; non-HCC, _0.73 0.81_0.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, _0.59 0.65_0.71 ; non-HCC, _0.69 0.75_0.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.

BACKGROUND:Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years). METHODS:In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017-4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017-2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics. RESULTS:Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84-0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91-0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85-0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74-0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73-0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87-0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88-0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87-0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72-0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54-0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76-1.13). CONCLUSIONS:Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

OBJECTIVES:The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the provisions of health services to necessary but deprioritised fields, such as transplantation. Many programmes had to ramp-down their activity, which may significantly affect transplant volumes. We aimed to pragmatically analyse measures of transplant activity and compare them by a country's income level and cumulative COVID-19 incidence (CCI). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:From June to September 2020, we surveyed transplant physicians identified as key informants in their programmes. Of the 1267 eligible physicians, 40.5% from 71 countries participated. OUTCOME:Four pragmatic measures of transplant activity. RESULTS:Overall, 46.5% of the programmes from high-income countries anticipate being able to maintain >75% of their transplant volume compared with 31.6% of the programmes from upper-middle-income countries, and with 21.7% from low/lower-middle-income countries (p<0.001). This could be because more programmes in high-income countries reported being able to perform transplantation/s (86.8%%-58.5%-67.9%, p<0.001), maintain prepandemic deceased donor offers (31.0%%-14.2%-26.4%, p<0.01) and avoid a ramp down phase (30.9%%-19.7%-8.3%, p<0.001), respectively. In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for CCI, programmes in upper-middle-income countries (adjusted OR, aOR=0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81) and low/lower-middle-income countries (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67) had lower odds of being able to maintain >75% of their transplant volume, compared with programmes in high-income countries. Again, this could be attributed to lower-income being associated with 3.3-3.9 higher odds of performing no transplantation/s, 66%-68% lower odds of maintaining prepandemic donor offers and 37%-76% lower odds of avoiding ramp-down of transplantation. Overall, CCI was not associated with these measures. CONCLUSIONS:The impact of the pandemic on transplantation was more in lower-income countries, independent of the COVID-19 burden. Given the lag of 1-2 years in objective data being reported by global registries, our findings may inform practice and policy. Transplant programmes in lower-income countries may need more effort to rebuild disrupted services and recuperate from the pandemic even if their COVID-19 burden was low.

BACKGROUND:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) occurs in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Risks and outcomes remain poorly understood. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals was conducted between March and August 2020. CAPA was defined using composite clinical criteria. Fine and Gray competing risks regression was used to analyze clinical outcomes and, multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression was used to compare longitudinal disease severity scores. RESULTS:In the cohort of 396 people, 39 met criteria for CAPA. Patients with CAPA were more likely than those without CAPA to have underlying pulmonary vascular disease (41% vs 21.6%, respectively; P = .01), liver disease (35.9% vs 18.2%; P = .02), coagulopathy (51.3% vs 33.1%; P = .03), solid tumors (25.6% vs 10.9%; P = .02), multiple myeloma (5.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03), and corticosteroid exposure during the index admission (66.7% vs 42.6%; P = .005), and had lower body mass indexes (median, 26.6 vs 29.9 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]; P = .04). Patients with CAPA had worse outcomes, as measured by ordinal severity of disease scores, requiring longer time to improvement (adjusted odds ratio, 1.081.091.1; P < .001), and advancing in severity almost twice as quickly (subhazard ratio, 1.31.82.5; P < .001). They were intubated twice as long as those without CAPA (subhazard ratio, 0.40.50.6; P < .001) and had longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range], 41.1 [20.5-72.4) vs 18.5 [10.7-31.8] days; P < .001). CONCLUSION:CAPA is associated with poor outcomes. Attention to preventive measures (screening and/or prophylaxis) is warranted in people with high risk of CAPA.