Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Kidney allograft failure is a common cause of end-stage renal disease. We aimed to develop a dynamic artificial intelligence approach to enhance risk stratification for kidney transplant recipients by generating continuously refined predictions of survival using updates of clinical data. METHODS:In this observational study, we used data from adult recipients of kidney transplants from 18 academic transplant centres in Europe, the USA, and South America, and a cohort of patients from six randomised controlled trials. The development cohort comprised patients from four centres in France, with all other patients included in external validation cohorts. To build deeply phenotyped cohorts of transplant recipients, the following data were collected in the development cohort: clinical, histological, immunological variables, and repeated measurements of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria (measured using the proteinuria to creatininuria ratio). To develop a dynamic prediction system based on these clinical assessments and repeated measurements, we used a Bayesian joint models-an artificial intelligence approach. The prediction performances of the model were assessed via discrimination, through calculation of the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), and calibration. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04258891. FINDINGS/RESULTS:13 608 patients were included (3774 in the development cohort and 9834 in the external validation cohorts) and contributed 89 328 patient-years of data, and 416 510 eGFR and proteinuria measurements. Bayesian joint models showed that recipient immunological profile, allograft interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, allograft inflammation, and repeated measurements of eGFR and proteinuria were independent risk factors for allograft survival. The final model showed accurate calibration and very high discrimination in the development cohort (overall dynamic AUC 0·857 [95% CI 0·847-0·866]) with a persistent improvement in AUCs for each new repeated measurement (from 0·780 [0·768-0·794] to 0·926 [0·917-0·932]; p<0·0001). The predictive performance was confirmed in the external validation cohorts from Europe (overall AUC 0·845 [0·837-0·854]), the USA (overall AUC 0·820 [0·808-0·831]), South America (overall AUC 0·868 [0·856-0·880]), and the cohort of patients from randomised controlled trials (overall AUC 0·857 [0·840-0·875]). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Because of its dynamic design, this model can be continuously updated and holds value as a bedside tool that could refine the prognostic judgements of clinicians in everyday practice, hence enhancing precision medicine in the transplant setting. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:MSD Avenir, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research, and Bettencourt Schueller Foundation.

This study of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in 14 persons with HIV (PWH) demonstrated uniformly high anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody titres after two doses, despite varied titres after a single dose. The majority of vaccine reactions were mild and no adverse events occurred.

Importance:Traditionally, liver transplant (LT) for alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) requires 6 months of abstinence. Although early LT before 6 months of abstinence has been associated with decreased mortality for decompensated ALD, this practice remains controversial and concentrated at a few centers. Objective:To define patient, allograft, and relapse-free survival in early LT for ALD, and to investigate the association between these survival outcomes and early vs standard LT. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study analyzed all patients with ALD who underwent their first LT at a single academic referral center between October 1, 2012, and November 13, 2020. Patients with known pretransplant hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatitis B or C, or an alternative cause of liver failure were excluded. Follow-up period was defined as the time from LT to the most recent encounter with a transplant center or death. Exposures:The exposure of interest was early LT, which was defined as less than 180 days of pre-LT abstinence. Standard LT was defined as 180 days or more of pre-LT abstinence. Patients were separated into early LT and standard LT by time from abstinence to LT. Main Outcomes and Measures:The outcomes were patient, allograft, relapse-free, and hazardous relapse-free survival for patients who underwent early LT or standard LT. These groups were compared by log-rank testing of Kaplan-Meier estimates. Hazardous relapse was defined as binge, at-risk, or frequent drinking. Abstinence was reassessed at the most recent follow-up visit for all patients. Results:Of the 163 patients with ALD included in this study, 88 (54%) underwent early LT and 75 (46%) underwent standard LT. This cohort had a mean (SD) age at transplant of 52 (10) years and was predominantly composed of 108 male patients (66%). Recipients of early LT vs standard LT were younger (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 49.7 [39.0-54.2] years vs 54.6 [48.7-60.0] years; P < .001) and had a higher median (IQR) Model for End-stage Liver Disease score at listing (35.0 [29.0-39.0] vs 20.0 [13.0-26.0]; P < .001). Both recipients of early LT and standard LT had similar 1-year patient survival (94.1% [95% CI, 86.3%-97.5%] vs 95.9% [95% CI, 87.8%-98.7%]; P = .60), allograft survival (92.7% [95% CI, 84.4%-96.7%] vs 90.5% [95% CI, 81.0%-95.3%]; P = .42), relapse-free survival (80.4% [95% CI, 69.1%-88.0%] vs 83.5% [95% CI, 72.2%-90.6%]; P = .41), and hazardous relapse-free survival (85.8% [95% CI, 75.1%-92.2%] vs 89.6% [95% CI, 79.5%-94.9%]; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance:Adherence to the 6-month rule was not associated with superior patient survival, allograft survival, or relapse-free survival among selected patients. This finding suggests that patients with ALD should not be categorically excluded from LT solely on the basis of 6 months of abstinence, but rather alternative selection criteria should be identified that are based on need and posttransplant outcomes.

Vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses are attenuated in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) and breakthrough infections are more common. Additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses increase anti-spike IgG in some SOTRs, but it is uncertain whether neutralization of variants of concern (VOCs) is enhanced. We tested 47 SOTRs for clinical and research anti-spike IgG, pseudoneutralization (ACE2 blocking), and live-virus neutralization (nAb) against VOCs before and after a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose (70% mRNA, 30% Ad26.COV2.S) with comparison to 15 healthy controls after two mRNA vaccine doses. We used correlation analysis to compare anti-spike IgG assays and focused on thresholds associated with neutralizing activity. A third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose increased median anti-spike (1.6-fold) and receptor-binding domain (1.5-fold) IgG, as well as pseudoneutralization against VOCs (2.5-fold versus Delta). However, IgG and neutralization activity were significantly lower than healthy controls (p<0.001); 32% of SOTRs had zero detectable nAb against Delta after third vaccination. Correlation with nAb was seen at anti-spike IgG >4 AU on the clinical assay and >10^4 AU on the research assay. These findings highlight benefits of a third vaccine dose for some SOTRs and the need for alternative strategies to improve protection in a significant subset of this population.

BACKGROUND:We studied the safety and reactogenicity SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in transplant recipients because immunosuppressed patients were excluded from vaccine trials. METHODS:US transplant recipients were recruited into this prospective cohort study through social media; those who completed the full vaccine series between December 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 were included. We collected demographics, medical history, and safety information within 7 d after doses 1 and 2 (D1, D2). Associations between characteristics and reactions were evaluated using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS:We studied 741 transplant recipients who underwent BNT162b2 (54%) or mRNA-1273 (46%) vaccination. Median (interquartile range) age was 60 (44-69) y, 57% were female, and 10% were non-White. Although local site reactions decreased after D2 (85% D1 versus 78% D2, P < 0.001), systemic reactions increased (49% D1 versus 69% D2, P < 0.001). Younger participants were more likely to develop systemic symptoms after D1 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] per 10 y = 0.850.900.94, P < 0.001) and D2 (aIRR per 10 y = 0.910.930.96, P < 0.001). Participants who experienced pain (aIRR = 1.111.662.47, P = 0.01) or redness (aIRR = 1.833.928.41, P < 0.01) were more likely to develop an antibody response to D1 of mRNA vaccines. No anaphylaxis, neurologic diagnoses, or SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses were reported. Infections were minimal (3% after D1, <0.01% after D2). One patient reported incident acute rejection post-D2. CONCLUSIONS:In solid organ transplant recipients undergoing mRNA vaccination, reactogenicity was similar to that reported in the original trials. Severe reactions were rare. These early safety data may help address vaccine hesitancy in transplant recipients.

MELD-Na appears to disadvantage women awaiting liver transplant by underestimating their mortality rate. Fixing this problem involves: (1) estimating the magnitude of this disadvantage separately for each MELD-Na, (2) designing a correction for each MELD-Na, and (3) evaluating corrections to MELD-Na using simulated allocation. Using Kaplan-Meier modeling, we calculated 90-day without-transplant survival for men and women, separately at each MELD-Na. For most scores between 15 and 35, without-transplant survival was higher for men by 0-5 percentage points. We tested two proposed corrections to MELD-Na (MELD-Na-MDRD and MELD-GRAIL-Na), and one correction we developed (MELD-Na-Shift) to target the differences we quantified in survival across the MELD-Na spectrum. In terms of without-transplant survival, MELD-Na-MDRD overcorrected sex differences while MELD-GRAIL-Na and MELD-Na-Shift eliminated them. Estimating the impact of implementing these corrections with the liver simulated allocation model, we found that MELD-Na-Shift alone eliminated sex disparity in transplant rates (p = 0.4044) and mortality rates (p = 0.7070); transplant rates and mortality rates were overcorrected by MELD-Na-MDRD (p = 0.0025, p = 0.0006) and MELD-GRAIL-Na (p = 0.0079, p = 0.0005). We designed a corrected MELD-Na that eliminates sex disparities in without-transplant survival, but allocation changes directing smaller livers to shorter candidates may also be needed to equalize women's access to liver transplant.