Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:We developed the strength training intervention (STRIVE), a home-based exercise program targeting physical function in patients with cirrhosis. In this pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of STRIVE. METHODS:Eligible were adult patients with cirrhosis at 3 sites. Patients were randomized 2:1-12 weeks of STRIVE, a 30-minute strength training video plus a health coach or standard of care (SOC). Physical function and quality of life were assessed using the Liver Frailty Index (LFI) and Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ), respectively. RESULTS:Fifty-eight and 25 were randomized to STRIVE and SOC arms, respectively: 43% women, median age was 61 years, MELDNa, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium was 14, and 54% were Child-Pugh B/C. Baseline characteristics were similar in the STRIVE vs SOC arms except for rates of hepatic encephalopathy (19 vs 36%). LFI @ 12 weeks was available in 43 STRIVE and 20 SOC participants. After 12 weeks, the median LFI improved from 3.8 to 3.6 (ΔLFI -0.1) in the STRIVE arm and 3.7 to 3.6 (ΔLFI -0.1) in the SOC arm (P = 0.65 for ΔLFI difference). CLDQ scores improved from 4.6 to 5.2 in STRIVE participants (ΔCLDQ 0.38) and did not change in SOC participants (4.2-4.2; ΔCLDQ -0.03) (P = 0.09 for ΔCLDQ difference). One patient died (SOC arm) of bleeding. Only 14% of STRIVE participants adhered to the strength training video for 10-12 weeks. No adverse events were reported by STRIVE participants. DISCUSSION:STRIVE, a home-based structured exercise program for patients with cirrhosis, was safely administered at 3 sites, but adherence was low. Although all participants showed minimal improvement in the LFI, STRIVE was associated with a substantial improvement in quality of life.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Cirrhosis leads to malnutrition and muscle wasting that manifests as frailty, which may be influenced by cirrhosis aetiology. We aimed to characterize the relationship between frailty and cirrhosis aetiology. METHODS:Included were adults with cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation (LT) at 10 US centrer who underwent ambulatory testing with the Liver Frailty Index (LFI; 'frail' = LFI ≥ 4.4). We used logistic regression to associate aetiologies and frailty, and competing risk regression (LT as the competing risk) to determine associations with waitlist mortality (death/delisting for sickness). RESULTS:Of 1,623 patients, rates of frailty differed by aetiology: 22% in chronic hepatitis C, 31% in alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), 32% in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 21% in autoimmune/cholestatic and 31% in 'other' (P < .001). In univariable logistic regression, ALD (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09), NAFLD (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.18-2.29) and 'other' (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.36) were associated with frailty. In multivariable logistic regression, only ALD (OR 1.40; 95% 1.01-1.94) and 'other' (OR 1.59; 95% 1.05-2.40) remained associated with frailty. A total of 281 (17%) patients died/were delisted for sickness. In multivariable competing risk regression, LFI was associated with waitlist mortality (sHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06), but aetiology was not (P > .05 for each). No interaction between frailty and aetiology on the association with waitlist mortality was found (P > .05 for each interaction term). CONCLUSIONS:Frailty is more common in patients with ALD, NAFLD and 'other' aetiologies. However, frailty was associated with waitlist mortality independent of cirrhosis aetiology, supporting the applicability of frailty across all cirrhosis aetiologies.

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.

Organ transplant patients have poor immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines; thus designing vaccine strategies to protect this vulnerable population from SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial.

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.

Allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension may carry subclinical kidney disease from the donor to the recipient and, thus, lead to adverse recipient outcomes. We examined eGFR trajectories and all-cause allograft failure in recipients from donors with versus without hypertension, using mixed-linear and Cox regression models stratified by donor age. We studied a US cohort from 1/1/2005 to 6/30/2017; 49 990 recipients of allografts from younger (<50 years old) donors including 597 with donor hypertension and 21 130 recipients of allografts from older (≥50 years old) donors including 1441 with donor hypertension. Donor hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy. Among recipients from younger donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -1.03 versus -0.53 ml/min/m² (P = 0.002); 13-year allograft survival was 49.7% vs. 59.0% (adjusted allograft failure hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23; 95% CI 1.05-1.43; P = 0.009). Among recipients from older donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -0.67 versus -0.66 ml/min/m² (P = 0.9); 13-year allograft survival was 48.6% versus 52.6% (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; P = 0.4). In secondary analyses, our inferences remained similar for risk of death-censored allograft failure and mortality. Hypertension in younger, but not older, living kidney donors is associated with worse recipient outcomes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been wide heterogeneity in the medical management of transplant recipients. We aimed to pragmatically capture immunosuppression practices globally following the early months of the pandemic. From June to September 2020, we surveyed 1267 physicians; 40.5% from 71 countries participated. Management decisions were made on a case-by-case basis by the majority (69.6%) of the programs. Overall, 76.8% performed ≥1 transplantation and many commented on avoiding high-risk transplantations. For induction, 26.5% were less likely to give T-cell depletion and 14.8% were more likely to give non-depleting agents. These practices varied by program-level factors more so than the COVID-19 burden. In patients with mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 symptoms 59.7%, 76.0%, and 79.5% decreased/stopped anti-metabolites, 23.2%, 45.4%, and 68.2% decreased/stopped calcineurin inhibitors, and 25.7%, 43.9%, and 57.7% decreased/stopped mTOR inhibitors, respectively. Also, 2.1%, 30.6%, and 46.0% increased steroids in patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 symptoms. For prevalent transplant recipients, some programs also reported decreasing/stopping steroids (1.8%), anti-metabolites (10.3%), calcineurin inhibitors (4.1%), and mTOR inhibitors (5.5%). Transplant programs changed immunosuppression practices but also avoided high-risk transplants and increased maintenance steroids. The long-term ramifications of these practices remain to be seen as programs face the aftermath of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The creation and maintenance of durable hemodialysis access is critically important for reducing patient morbidity and controlling overall costs within health systems. Our objective was to quantify the costs associated with hemodialysis access creation and its maintenance over time within a rate-controlled health system where charges equate to payments. METHODS:The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission administrative claims database was used to identify patients who underwent first-time access creation from 2012-2020. Patients were identified using CPT codes for access creation, and costs were accrued for the initial encounter and all subsequent outpatient access-related encounters. T-tests and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare reinterventions and access-related costs ($USD) between arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and arteriovenous grafts (AVG). Multivariable modeling was used to quantify the association of access type with charge variation. RESULTS:Overall, 12,716 patients underwent first-time access creation (69.3% AVF vs. 30.7% AVG). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention between the two access types at any point following creation (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10); however, AVF were associated with a lower number of cumulative reinterventions (1.50 vs. 2.24) compared to AVG (P<0.0001). AVF was associated with lower overall costs in the year of creation ($9,388 vs. $13,539, P<0.0001), a difference that remained significant over the subsequent 3 years. The lower costs associated with AVF were present both in the costs associated with creation and subsequent maintenance. On multivariable analysis, AVF was associated with a $3,557 reduction in total access-related costs versus AVG (95%CI -$3828, -3287). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:AVF require fewer interventions and are associated with lower costs at placement and over the first three years of maintenance compared to AVG. The use of AVF for first-time hemodialysis access represents an opportunity for healthcare savings in appropriately selected patients with a high preoperative likelihood of AVF maturation.

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.