Faculty Bibliography

Background: Studies to date indicate that most adults develop IgG antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 6 weeks of COVID-19 symptom onset. The seroconversion rate of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) following COVID-19 is unknown. Elucidation of humoral immune responses following COVID-19 in SOTR may inform risk of reinfection and the development of safe and effective vaccines for immunocompromised hosts.
Method(s): We assessed the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection among adult SOTR diagnosed with COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal PCR assays between 3/1/2020 and 6/5/2020. SARS-CoV-2 IgG was detected in serum using the Abbott IgG assay at the manufacturer's recommended cut-off. Our primary objective was the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity after COVID-19. A secondary objective was to identify clinical factors associated with seroconversion. The mean age and nadir absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) were calculated between seropositive and negative SOTR and compared by Student's t-test.
Result(s): Among 93 SOTR diagnosed with COVID-19, 19 died before SARSCoV- 2 IgG testing could be performed, and 18 had testing pending as of abstract submission. 56 SOTR (44 kidney, 5 heart, 4 liver, 1 lung, and 1 heart-kidney recipients) completed testing and were included in the analysis. Median age was 58 years (IQR 49.5-67), and all received maintenance immunosuppression at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis with median nadir ALC during illness of 400 (IQR 200-600). SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing was performed at a median of 60 days (IQR 50-70) from symptom onset, the shortest interval being 16 days. 47 out of 56 SOTR tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The likelihood of seroconversion was not different between those who were tested at < or >= 60 days from symptom onset (p=0.26), nor did it vary significantly by age (p =0.59), gender (p=0.53) or nadir ALC (p =0.28).
Conclusion(s): 83% of evaluated SOTR with COVID-19 disease had detectable SARS-CoV-2 IgG in serum at a median of 60 days after symptom onset. Studies are ongoing to identify variables associated with poor antibody response among the nearly 20% of SOTR in this cohort who failed to seroconvert. The significance of seroconversion on risk of reinfection and vaccine immunogenicity remains to be determined

Data describing the clinical progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in transplant recipients are limited. In New York City during the surge in COVID-19 cases, a systematic approach to monitoring and triaging immunocompromised transplant patients was required in the context of strained healthcare resources, limited outpatient testing, and heightened hospital exposure risks. Public health guidance at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak recommended outpatient monitoring of mildly symptomatic patients without specific recommendations for special populations such as transplant recipients. We developed and implemented a systematic monitoring algorithm for kidney transplant recipients at our transplant center who reported mild symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. We describe the outcomes of the first 44 patients monitored through this algorithm. A total of 44 kidney transplant recipients thought to be symptomatic for COVID-19 disease were followed for a minimum of 14 days. The majority of mildly symptomatic patients (34/44) had clinical progression of disease and were referred to the emergency department where they all tested PCR positive and required hospitalization. More than half of these patients presented with hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen, 39% were intubated within 48 hours, and 53% developed acute kidney injury but did not require dialysis. There were 6 deaths. During surge outbreaks, kidney transplant patients with even mild symptoms have a high likelihood of COVID-19 disease and most will worsen requiring hospitalization for supportive measures. Earlier outpatient testing and hospitalization may improve COVID-19 outcomes among transplant recipients.

Study: Infections of the percutaneous lead site remain a frequent and costly complication for patients supported with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). This retrospective analysis compares the use of three different driveline management kits and the occurrence of infection experienced at a single center. The kits used differ based on cleansing solution and adhesive covering. The primary 'green' kit utilizes chlorhexidine for cleaning and a tegaderm as the adhesive component. Patients that experienced peripheral irritation remote from the exit site were switched to the 'yellow' kit, which includes chlorhexidine and bordered gauze. The last kit, the 'blue' kit uses povidone iodine and bordered gauze and is reserved only for those with a chlorhexidine allergy.
Method(s): All patients that were implanted with a durable LVAD device at a single center were included in the analysis. Patient data was extracted that included the following information: occurrence of a driveline infection, which management kit was used, which device was implanted, additional diagnosis of diabetes, presence of a caregiver and other demographics. The sample of patients that experienced driveline site infections was further examined to extract clinically significant influences.
Result(s): Data from 104 patients was included in the analysis. 70 were implanted with the Heartmate II device and 34 with the HVAD. The age range for the population was 23-77. The gender breakdown included 78 males and 26 females. A total of 23 patient infections were appreciated. Statistical analysis of the infected sample showed a higher rate of infections associated with use of the 'blue' kit that contains povidone iodine instead of chlorhexidine. It also was noted that incidence of infection was higher in younger patients and decreased with age. Diabetes, the presence of a caregiver, type of LVAD device and gender did not show statistically significant findings

We represent a group of investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01AI120938, U01AI134591, U01AI138897) to conduct a prospective multicenter study of the landscape of HIV-infected (HIV+) donors and two prospective multicenter trials comparing outcomes between HIV+ recipients of HIV+ and non-HIV+ donor kidneys and livers. These clinical trials are ongoing (NCT02602262, NCT03500315, NCT03734393).

Background. Strongyloidiasis can lead to hyperinfection and dissemination afer transplantation with signifcant morbidity and mortality. Treatment for Strongyloidiasis prior to transplantation can reduce the risk of disseminated infection. Targeted screening based on travel history and country of origin incompletely identifes at-risk patients. Data on universal screening prior to solid-organ (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are limited. We implemented universal serology-based screening for strongyloides at our transplant center, located in a metropolitan non-ndemic area. Methods. We identifed patients screened with serum Strongyloides IgG by ELISA during pre-transplant evaluation for SOT or HSCT from August 1, 2017 to April 25, 2018. We reviewed adherence to the screening recommendation by program type and the medical record of seropositive patients for country of origin, history of eosinophilia (>500 cell/muL), Gram-negative bacteremia, ova and parasite (O&P) examination and treatment. Results. A total of 812 patients were evaluated for transplant during the study period: 484 for kidney, 152 for liver, 12 for liver/kidney transplant, 40 for heart, 24 for lung, and 100 for HSCT. 201 (24.7%) of the 812 patients were screened for Strongyloides; 107 (17%) evaluated for abdominal transplant, 32 (50%) for thoracic transplant, and 62 (60%) for HSCT. Seventeen (8.4%) of 201 patients screened tested positive: nine evaluated for kidney transplant, four for heart, one for liver, and three for HSCT. Nine of 17 patients (53%) were treated with Ivermectin or referred to Infectious Diseases clinic prior to our review. Ten (59%) seropositive patients were from the United States and 70% had no documented travel to endemic areas; six patients were from countries other than the United States; and one from Puerto Rico. Two patients with Strongyloidiasis had eosinophilia, one had history of Klebsiella pneumoniae bac-teremia and one had stool O&P examination. Screening was higher when using an electronic order set (57% vs. 17%). Conclusion. Universal screening for Strongyloidiasis identifed individuals with latent infection who did not have epidemiological or clinical fndings suggestive of Strongyloidiasis. Screening for Strongyloidiasis was higher in transplant programs that incorporated the recommendation into an electronic order set

Piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) is frequently used as empirical and targeted therapy for Gram-negative sepsis. Time-dependent killing properties of PTZ support the use of extended-infusion (EI) dosing; however, studies have shown inconsistent benefits of EI PTZ treatment on clinical outcomes. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who received EI PTZ treatment and historical controls who received standard-infusion (SI) PTZ treatment for presumed sepsis syndromes. Data on mortality rates, clinical outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and disease severity were obtained. A total of 843 patients (662 with EI treatment and 181 with SI treatment) were available for analysis. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for fewer female patients receiving EI treatment. No significant differences between the EI and SI groups in inpatient mortality rates (10.9% versus 13.8%; P = 0.282), overall LOS (10 versus 12 days; P = 0.171), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (7 versus 6 days; P = 0.061), or clinical failure rates (18.4% versus 19.9%; P = 0.756) were observed. However, the duration of PTZ therapy was shorter in the EI group (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Among ICU patients, no significant differences in outcomes between the EI and SI groups were observed. Patients with urinary or intra-abdominal infections had lower mortality and clinical failure rates when receiving EI PTZ treatment. We did not observe significant differences in inpatient mortality rates, overall LOS, ICU LOS, or clinical failure rates between patients receiving EI PTZ treatment and patients receiving SI PTZ treatment. Patients receiving EI PTZ treatment had a shorter duration of PTZ therapy than did patients receiving SI treatment, and EI dosing may provide cost savings to hospitals.