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.

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.

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.

Kidney transplantation (KT) experts did not support the use of subjective unintentional weight loss to measure shrinking in the physical frailty phenotype (PFP); a clinically feasible and predictive measure of shrinking is needed. To test whether unintentional weight loss could be replaced by an assessment of sarcopenia using existing CT scans, we performed a prospective cohort study of adult KT recipients with original PFP (oPFP) measured at admission (December 2008-February 2020). We ascertained sarcopenia by calculating skeletal muscle index from available, clinically obtained CTs within 1-year pre-KT (male < 50 cm² /m² ; female < 39 cm² /m² ) and combined it with the original four components to determine new PFP (nPFP) scores. Frailty was classified by frailty score: 0: non-frail; 1-2: pre-frail; ≥3: frail. Mortality and graft loss hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Model discrimination was quantified using Harrell's C-statistic. Among 1113 recipients, 18.6% and 17.1% were frail by oPFP and nPFP, respectively. Compared to non-frail recipients, frail patients by either PFP had higher risks of mortality (oPFP HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.07-2.62, C = 0.710; nPFP HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66, C = 0.710) and graft loss (oPFP HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.17-2.40, C = 0.631; nPFP HR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.15-2.40, C = 0.634) with similar discriminations. oPFP and nPFP are equally useful in risk prediction for KT recipients; oPFP may aid in screening patients for pre-KT interventions, while nPFP may assist in nuanced clinical decision-making.

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 neutralization. A third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose increased median total anti-spike (1.6-fold), pseudoneutralization against VOCs (2.5-fold vs. Delta), and neutralizing antibodies (1.4-fold against Delta). However, neutralization activity was significantly lower than healthy controls (p < .001); 32% of SOTRs had zero detectable nAb against Delta after third vaccination compared to 100% for controls. Correlation with nAb was seen at anti-spike IgG >4 Log₁₀ (AU/ml) on the Euroimmun ELISA and >4 Log₁₀ (AU/ml) on the MSD 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/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.