Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Belatacept may impair humoral immunity, impacting the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in transplant recipients. We investigated immunogenicity after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in kidney transplant recipients who are and are not taking belatacept. METHODS:Participants were recruited between December 9, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Blood samples were collected after dose 1 and dose 2 (D1, D2) and analyzed using either an anti-SARS-CoV-2 enzyme immunoassay against the S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights was used to compare immunogenicity, and a weighted logistics regression was used to calculate fold change of positive response. RESULTS:Among the 609 participants studied, 24 (4%) were taking belatacept. After dose 1, 0/24 (0%) belatacept patients had detectable antibodies, compared with 77 of 568 (14%) among the equivalent nonbelatacept population (P = 0.06). After dose 2, 1/19 (5%) belatacept patients had detectable antibodies, compared with 190/381 (50%) among the equivalent nonbelatacept population (P < 0.001). Belatacept use was associated with 16.7-fold lower odds of having a positive post-D2 titer result (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Additional measures need to be explored to protect kidney transplant recipients taking belatacept. Best safety practices should be continued despite vaccination among this population.

In this study of 12 people with HIV (PWH) who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies were detectable in all participants; lower antibody levels were seen in those with lower CD4+ counts, and vaccine reactions were generally mild.

Background/UNASSIGNED:) transplantation involves ethical considerations related to safety, consent, stigma, and privacy, which could be better understood through studying patients' actual experiences. Methods/UNASSIGNED:transplantation at 4 centers regarding their decision-making process, the informed consent process, and posttransplant experiences. Participants were interviewed at-transplant (≤3 wk after transplant), posttransplant (≥3 mo after transplant), or both time points. Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison of inductive and deductive coding. Results/UNASSIGNED:transplant candidates were unable to receive HIV-noninfected donor organs. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:transplant candidates regarding available treatment options and for transplant teams regarding privacy and stigma concerns would be beneficial.

The SRTR maintains the liver-simulated allocation model (LSAM), a tool for estimating the impact of changes to liver allocation policy. Integral to LSAM is a model that predicts the decision to accept or decline a liver for transplant. LSAM implicitly assumes these decisions are made identically for adult and pediatric liver transplant (LT) candidates, which has not been previously validated. We applied LSAM's decision-making models to SRTR offer data from 2013 to 2016 to determine its efficacy for adult (≥18) and pediatric (<18) LT candidates, and pediatric subpopulations-teenagers (≥12 to <18), children (≥2 to <12), and infants (<2)-using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). For nonstatus 1A candidates, all pediatric subgroups had higher rates of offer acceptance than adults. For non-1A candidates, LSAM's model performed substantially worse for pediatric candidates than adults (AUC 0.815 vs. 0.922); model performance decreased with age (AUC 0.898, 0.806, 0.783 for teenagers, children, and infants, respectively). For status 1A candidates, LSAM also performed worse for pediatric than adult candidates (AUC 0.711 vs. 0.779), especially for infants (AUC 0.618). To ensure pediatric candidates are not unpredictably or negatively impacted by allocation policy changes, we must explicitly account for pediatric-specific decision making in LSAM.

BACKGROUND:Although the population of older transplant recipients has increased dramatically, there are limited data describing the impact of immunosuppression regimen choice on outcomes in this recipient group. METHODS:National data for US Medicare-insured adult kidney recipients (N = 67 362; 2005-2016) were examined to determine early immunosuppression regimen and associations with acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, and mortality using multivariable regression analysis in younger (18-64 y) and older (>65 y) adults. RESULTS:The use of antithymocyte globulin (TMG) or alemtuzumab (ALEM) induction with triple maintenance immunosuppression (reference) was less common in older compared with younger (36.9% versus 47.0%) recipients, as was TMG/ALEM + steroid avoidance (19.2% versus 20.1%) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi)-based (6.7% versus 7.7%) treatments. Conversely, older patients were more likely to receive interleukin (IL)-2-receptor antibody (IL2rAb) + triple maintenance (21.1% versus 14.7%), IL2rAb + steroid avoidance (4.1% versus 1.8%), and cyclosporine-based (8.3% versus 6.6%) immunosuppression. Compared with older recipients treated with TMG/ALEM + triple maintenance (reference regimen), those managed with TMG/ALEM + steroid avoidance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.440.520.61) and IL2rAb + steroid avoidance (aOR, 0.390.550.79) had lower risk of acute rejection. Older patients experienced more death-censored graft failure when managed with Tac + antimetabolite avoidance (adjusted hazard [aHR], 1.411.782.25), mTORi-based (aHR, 1.702.142.71), and cyclosporine-based (aHR, 1.411.782.25) regimens, versus the reference regimen. mTORi-based and cyclosporine-based regimens were associated with increased mortality in both older and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS:Lower-intensity immunosuppression regimens (eg, steroid-sparing) appear beneficial for older kidney transplant recipients, while mTORi and cyclosporine-based maintenance immunosuppression are associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes.