Faculty Bibliography

Despite utilization of hepatitis C viremic organs for hepatitis C naïve recipients (HCV D+/R-) in other solid organ transplants, HCV viremic pancreata remain an unexplored source of donor organs. This study reports the first series of HCV D+/R- pancreas transplants. HCV D+/R- had shorter wait list times compared to HCV D-/R-, waiting a mean of 16 days from listing for HCV positive organs. HCV D+/R- had a lower match allocation sequence than HCV D-/R-, and this correlated to receipt of organs with a lower Pancreas Donor Risk Index (PDRI) score. All HCV D+R- had excellent graft function with a mean follow up of 438 days and had undetectable HCV RNA levels by a mean of 23 days after initiation of HCV-directed therapy. The rates of infectious complications, re-operation, readmission, rejection, and length of stay were not impacted by donor HCV status. A national review of potential ideal pancreas donors found that 37% of ideal HCV negative pancreas allografts were transplanted, compared to only 5% of ideal HCV positive pancreas allografts. The results of the current study demonstrate the safety of accepting HCV positive pancreata for HCV naïve recipients and advocates for increased utilization of ideal HCV positive pancreas allografts.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = _0.77 1.40_2.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = _0.88 1.35_2.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = _1.33 2.22_3.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = _2.62 3.57_4.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = _1.15 4.01_13.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected transplant center activity in areas with high number of cases such as New York City and prompted reevaluation of patients awaiting organ transplant diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. To resume safe transplantation at our center, we found it necessary to (1) identify transplant candidates with possible exposure to or history of COVID-19 infection, (2) outline a clinical and laboratory assessment to determine adequate clinical recovery from COVID-19 for transplantation, and (3) determine whether the possibility of perioperative COVID-19 transmission from the patient to staff would pose unacceptable risk. Here, we describe our center's approach to proceeding with transplantation in a SARS-CoV-2 seropositive living donor kidney transplant recipient and describe early posttransplant outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Sensitization to human leukocyte antigens has long posed an obstacle to organ transplantation. With desensitization protocol refinement, new drug development, and organ allocation policy changes, access to transplant for sensitized patients has never been greater. Yet in spite of these advances the problem of donor specific antibody remains incompletely solved, and many patients remain poorly served by the therapies that do exist. Area covered: Imlifidase is a new drug with a mechanism of action that enables it to transiently yet efficiently eliminate donor specific antibody over a much more rapid time course than any heretofore existing therapy. This unique property suggests that imlifidase may have far reaching potential for patients in whom donor specific antibodies may preclude successful transplantation. Below follows a review of the clinical experience with imlifidase to date as well as a discussion the transplant applications that eagerly await the availability of this novel agent. Expert opinion: Imlifidase is a first-in-class pharmaceutical agent that safely and efficiently cleaves IgG, and holds promise to be a game changer for sensitized patients in need of lifesaving organ transplants.

BACKGROUND:The use of direct acting antivirals (DAA) has expanded transplantation from hepatitis C viremic donors (HCV-VIR). Our team has conducted an open-label, prospective trial to assess outcomes transplanting HCV-viremic hearts. Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) was our sole DAA. METHODS:Serial quantitative hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA PCR was obtained to assess HCV viral titers. Between January 2018 to June 2019, a total of 50 recipients were transplanted. Of these, 22/50 (44%) were from HCV-VIR, the remaining 28 from non-viremic (HCV NON-VIR) donors. An 8 week course of GLE/PIB was initiated at 1 week post-transplant. RESULTS:There was no difference in demographic or clinical parameters between groups. All 22 recipients of HCV-VIR transplants became viremic. GLE/PIB was effective in decreasing viremia to undetectable levels by 6 weeks post-transplant in all patients. The median time to first undetectable HCV quantitative PCR was (4.3 weeks, IQR: 4-5.7 weeks). All patients demonstrated sustained undetectable viral load through 1 year follow up. There was no difference in survival at one year between HCV NON-VIR 28/28: (100%) vs. HCV-VIR 21/22 (95%) recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Our center reports excellent outcomes in transplanting utilizing hearts from HCV-VIR donors. No effect on survival or co-morbidity was found. An 8 week GLE/PIB course was safe and effective when initiated approximately 1 week post-transplant.

BACKGROUND:Several studies have described improved survival with double lung transplantation (DLT) compared to single lung transplantation (SLT) in pulmonary fibrosis. To avoid the innate selection bias of including patients exclusively listed for SLT or DLT, this study analyzed those deemed appropriate for either procedure at time of listing. METHODS:All consecutive adult lung transplants for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients were retrospectively reviewed (2007-2017). Isolated lobar transplants (N=11), or patients listed only for SLT (N=1834) or DLT (N=2372) were excluded. Group stratification was based on the ultimate procedure (SLT vs DLT). Group propensity matching was performed based on 24 recipient/donor characteristics. Recipient demographics, donor demographics, and outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS:During the study period, 45% (974/2179) and 55% (1205/2179) of patients ultimately received SLT and DLT, respectively. After propensity matching, 466 matched patients remained in each group. SLT patients were less likely to require prolonged (>48 hours) ventilator support than DLT patients. There was also a trend towards reduced rates of post-transplant renal failure and hospital length of stay in SLT recipients. Whether analyzed by time of listing or time of transplant, survival was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS:In recipients concurrently listed for SLT and DLT, overall survival was similar regardless of the eventual procedure. These data suggests that the previously purported survival advantage for DLT may purely represent selection bias, and should not preclude the use of SLT in appropriately-selected IPF patients.

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated the safety of utilizing hepatitis C viremic donors (HCV+) to expand the donor pool through transplantation into hepatitis C naive recipients (HCV-). However, there has been a lack of enthusiasm to of er HCV+ pancreas grafts to HCV- recipients. We of ered HCV- pancreas patients the option to list for HCV+ donor organs.
Material(s) and Method(s): Patients undergoing pancreas transplant evaluation had informed consent by a transplant physician to receive HCV+ donor organs. We ensured patients had pharmacy coverage for post-transplant HCV anti-retroviral therapy prior to listing. In our early experience, 4 of our 8 transplant recipients elected to list for HCV+ donor organs.
Result(s): In the first 8 months, the average time to transplant from listing was 41 days for patients with standard listing and 21 days for patients listing for HCV+ organs (p<0.05). Of note, 2 of the 4 HCV- recipients were blood type AB and had shorter match time due to their blood type. For all HCV+ donors, COD was anoxia/drug OD, all were HCV antibody and NAT positive, PHS IR, and national imports, with average rank of 3 on the match run. All HCV- donors were local donors with average rank of 21 on the match run. HCV+ donors were younger (28 years) in contrast to HCV- donors (35 years). All recipients have excellent graft function with no signif cant dif erences in complications, LOS, or readmissions.
Conclusion(s): Utilization of HCV+ pancreas donors has allowed our patients increased access to high quality pancreas donors with signif cantly shorter wait times

Desensitization using plasma exchange can remove harmful antibodies prior to transplantation and mitigate risks for hyperacute and severe early acute antibody-mediated rejection. Traditionally, the use of plasma exchange requires a living donor so that the timing of treatments relative to transplant can be planned. Non-HLA antibody is increasingly recognized as capable of causing antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection and has been associated with decreased graft longevity. Our patient had high-strength non-HLA antibody deemed prohibitive to transplantation without desensitization, but no living donors. As the patient was eligible to receive an A2 ABO blood group organ and was willing to accept a hepatitis C positive donor kidney, this afforded a high probability of receiving an offer within a short enough time frame to attempt empiric desensitization in anticipation of a deceased donor transplant. Fifteen plasma exchange treatments were performed before the patient received an organ offer, and the patient was successfully transplanted. Hepatitis C infection was treated posttransplant. No episodes of rejection were observed. At one-year posttransplant, the patient maintains good graft function. In this case, willingness to consider nontraditional donor organs enabled us to mimic living donor desensitization using a deceased donor.

BACKGROUND:The national opioid epidemic may have expanded the donor pool for lung transplantation, but concerns remain regarding infectious risks and allograft function. This study compared donor/recipient characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for organ discard between overdose death donors (ODD) and all other mechanism-of-death donors. METHODS:Data on adult lung transplants from 2000-2017 were provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Pulmonary allografts used in multiple organ transplantations were excluded. Donor/recipient demographics, outcomes, and organ discard were analyzed with regards to ODD since 2010. Discard analysis was limited to donors who had at least one organ transplanted but their pulmonary allografts discarded. RESULTS:From 2010-2017, 7.3% (962/13,196) of lung transplantations were from ODD, over a 3-fold increase from the 2.1% (164/7,969) in 2000-2007. ODD were younger but more likely to have a history of smoking, hepatitis C, or an abnormal bronchoscopy finding. Overall survival was similar between ODD and non-ODD groups. ODD of discarded pulmonary allografts were younger and more likely to be hepatitis C positive, but were less likely to have a history of smoking than their non-ODD counterparts. CONCLUSIONS:Rates of ODD utilization in lung transplantation have increased in accordance with the opioid epidemic, but there remains a significant pool of ODD pulmonary allografts with favorable characteristics that are discarded. With no significant difference in survival between ODD and non-ODD recipients, further expansion of this donor pool may be appropriate and pulmonary allografts should not be discarded based solely on ODD status.