Faculty Bibliography

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: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.

Donor/recipient incompatibility in kidney transplantation classically refers to ABO/HLA-incompatibility. Kidney paired donation (KPD) was historically established to circumvent ABO/HLA-incompatibility, with the goal of identifying ABO/HLA-compatible matches. However, there is a broad range of donor factors known to impact recipient outcomes beyond ABO/HLA-incompatibility, such as age and weight, and quantitative tools are now available to empirically compare potential living donors across many of these factors, such as the living donor kidney donor profile index (LKDPI). Moreover, the detrimental impact of mismatch at other HLA antigens (such as DQ) and epitope mismatching on posttransplant outcomes has become increasingly recognized. Thus, it is time for a new paradigm of incompatibility that considers all of these risks factors together in assessing donor/recipient compatibility and the potential utility for KPD. Under this new paradigm of incompatibility, we show how the LKDPI and other tools can be used to identify donor/recipient incompatibilities that could be improved through KPD, even for those with a traditionally "compatible" living donor.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

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.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate disease flare and postvaccination reactions (reactogenicity) in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) following 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination. METHODS:RMD patients (n = 1,377) who received 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination between December 16, 2020 and April 15, 2021 completed questionnaires detailing local and systemic reactions experienced within 7 days of each vaccine dose (dose 1 and dose 2), and 1 month after dose 2, detailing any flares of RMD. Associations between demographic/clinical characteristics and flares requiring treatment were evaluated using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS:Among the patients, 11% reported flares requiring treatment; there were no reports of severe flares. Flares were associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.09, P = 0.02), flares in the 6 months preceding vaccination (IRR 2.36, P < 0.001), and the use of combination immunomodulatory therapy (IRR 1.95, P < 0.001). The most frequently reported local and systemic reactions included injection site pain (87% after dose 1, 86% after dose 2) and fatigue (60% after dose 1, 80% after dose 2). Reactogenicity increased after dose 2, particularly for systemic reactions. No allergic reactions or SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses were reported. CONCLUSION:Flares of underlying RMD following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were uncommon. There were no reports of severe flares. Local and systemic reactions typically did not interfere with daily activity. These early safety data can help address vaccine hesitancy in RMD patients.

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.

Status 1A liver transplant candidates are given the highest medical priority for the allocation of deceased donor livers. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires physicians to certify that a candidate has a life expectancy without a transplant of less than 7 days for that candidate to be given status 1A. Additionally, candidates receiving status 1A must have one of six medical conditions listed in policy. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from all prevalent liver transplant candidates from 2010 to 2020, we used a bias-corrected Kaplan-Meier model to calculate the survival of status 1A candidates and to determine their life expectancy without a transplant. We found that status 1A candidates have a life expectancy without a transplant of 24 (95% CI 20-46) days-over three times longer than what policy requires for status 1A designation. We repeated the analysis for subgroups of status 1A candidates based on the medical conditions that grant status 1A. We found that none of these subgroups met the life expectancy requirement. Harmonizing OPTN policy with observed data would sustain the integrity of the allocation process.