Faculty Bibliography

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.

Rationale & Objective/UNASSIGNED:Posttransplant diabetes mellitus (DM) after kidney transplantation increases morbidity and mortality, particularly in older and obese recipients. We aimed to examine the impact of immunosuppression selection on the risk of posttransplant DM among both older and obese kidney transplant recipients. Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective database study. Setting & Participants/UNASSIGNED:Kidney-only transplant recipients aged ≥18 years from 2005 to 2016 in the United States from US Renal Data System records, which integrate Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing records with Medicare billing claims. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Various immunosuppression regimens in the first 3 months after transplant. Outcomes/UNASSIGNED:Development of DM >3 months-to-1 year posttransplant. Analytical Approach/UNASSIGNED:We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the incidence of posttransplant DM by immunosuppression regimen with the reference regimen of thymoglobulin (TMG) or alemtuzumab (ALEM) with tacrolimus + mycophenolic acid + prednisone using inverse propensity weighting. Results/UNASSIGNED:(aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87). Limitations/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective study and lacked data on immunosuppression levels. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The beneficial impact of steroid avoidance using tacrolimus on posttransplant DM appears to differ by patient age and induction regimen.

Physical frailty and impaired cognition are common in patients with cirrhosis. Physical frailty can be assessed using performance-based tests, but the extent to which impaired cognition may impact performance is not well characterized. We assessed the relationship between impaired cognition and physical frailty in patients with cirrhosis. We enrolled 1,623 ambulatory adult patients with cirrhosis waiting for liver transplantation at 10 sites. Frailty was assessed with the liver frailty index (LFI; "frail," LFI ≥ 4.4). Cognition was assessed at the same visit with the number connection test (NCT); continuous "impaired cognition" was examined in primary analysis, with longer NCT (more seconds) indicating worse impaired cognition. For descriptive statistics, "impaired cognition" was NCT ≥ 45 seconds. Linear regression associated frailty and impaired cognition; competing risk regression estimated subhazard ratios (sHRs) of wait-list mortality (i.e., death/delisting for sickness). Median NCT was 41 seconds, and 42% had impaired cognition. Median LFI (4.2 vs. 3.8) and rates of frailty (38% vs. 20%) differed between those with and without impaired cognition. In adjusted analysis, every 10-second NCT increase associated with a 0.08-LFI increase (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.10). In univariable analysis, both frailty (sHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.87) and impaired cognition (sHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10) associated with wait-list mortality. After adjustment, frailty but not impaired cognition remained significantly associated with wait-list mortality (sHR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.33-1.79). Impaired cognition mediated 7.4% (95% CI, 2.0%-16.4%) of the total effect of frailty on 1-year wait-list mortality. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis with higher impaired cognition displayed higher rates of physical frailty, yet frailty independently associated with wait-list mortality while impaired cognition did not. Our data provide evidence for using the LFI to understand mortality risk in patients with cirrhosis, even when concurrent impaired cognition varies.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Few reports have focused on newer coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies (remdesivir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma) in solid organ transplant recipients; concerns had been raised regarding possible adverse impact on allograft function or secondary infections. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We studied 77 solid organ transplant inpatients with COVID-19 during 2 therapeutic eras (Era 1: March-May 2020, 21 patients; and Era 2: June-November 2020, 56 patients) and 52 solid organ transplant outpatients. Results/UNASSIGNED:In Era 1, no patients received remdesivir or dexamethasone, and 4 of 21 (19.4%) received convalescent plasma, whereas in Era 2, remdesivir (24/56, 42.9%), dexamethasone (24/56, 42.9%), and convalescent plasma (40/56, 71.4%) were commonly used. Mortality was low across both eras, 4 of 77 (5.6%), and rejection occurred in only 2 of 77 (2.8%) inpatients; infections were similar in hypoxemic patients with or without dexamethasone. Preexisting graft dysfunction was associated with greater need for hospitalization, higher severity score, and lower survival. Acute kidney injury was present in 37.3% of inpatients; renal function improved more rapidly in patients who received remdesivir and convalescent plasma. Post-COVID-19 renal and liver function were comparable between eras, out to 90 d. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Newer COVID-19 therapies did not appear to have a deleterious effect on allograft function, and infectious complications were comparable.