Faculty Bibliography

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) show poorer response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, yet response patterns and mechanistic drivers following third doses are ill-defined. We administered third monovalent mRNA vaccines to n = 81 KTRs with negative or low-titer anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody (n = 39 anti-RBD^NEG; n = 42 anti-RBD^LO), compared with healthy controls (HCs, n = 19), measuring anti-RBD, Omicron neutralization, spike-specific CD8⁺%, and SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cell receptor (TCR) repertoires. By day 30, 44% anti-RBD^NEG remained seronegative; 5% KTRs developed BA.5 neutralization (vs 68% HCs, P < .001). Day 30 spike-specific CD8⁺% was negative in 91% KTRs (vs 20% HCs; P = .07), without correlation to anti-RBD (r_s = 0.17). Day 30 SARS-CoV-2-reactive TCR repertoires were detected in 52% KTRs vs 74% HCs (P = .11). Spike-specific CD4⁺ TCR expansion was similar between KTRs and HCs, yet KTR CD8⁺ TCR depth was 7.6-fold lower (P = .001). Global negative response was seen in 7% KTRs, associated with high-dose MMF (P = .037); 44% showed global positive response. Of the KTRs, 16% experienced breakthrough infections, with 2 hospitalizations; prebreakthrough variant neutralization was poor. Absent neutralizing and CD8⁺ responses in KTRs indicate vulnerability to COVID-19 despite 3-dose mRNA vaccination. Lack of neutralization despite CD4⁺ expansion suggests B cell dysfunction and/or ineffective T cell help. Development of more effective KTR vaccine strategies is critical. (NCT04969263).

Neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses are attenuated in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) despite severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 vaccination. Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with the antibody combination tixagevimab and cilgavimab (T+C) might augment immunoprotection, yet in vitro activity and durability against Omicron sublineages BA.4/5 in fully vaccinated SOTRs have not been delineated. Vaccinated SOTRs, who received 300 + 300 mg T+C (ie, full dose), within a prospective observational cohort submitted pre and postinjection samples between January 31, 2022, and July 6, 2022. The peak live virus nAb was measured against Omicron sublineages (BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.4), and surrogate neutralization (percent inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor binding to full length spike, validated vs live virus) was measured out to 3 months against sublineages, including BA.4/5. With live virus testing, the proportion of SOTRs with any nAb increased against BA.2 (47%-100%; P < .01), BA.2.12.1 (27%-80%; P < .01), and BA.4 (27%-93%; P < .01), but not against BA.1 (40%-33%; P = .6). The proportion of SOTRs with surrogate neutralizing inhibition against BA.5, however, fell to 15% by 3 months. Two participants developed mild severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection during follow-up. The majority of fully vaccinated SOTRs receiving T+C PrEP achieved BA.4/5 neutralization, yet nAb activity commonly waned by 3 months postinjection. It is critical to assess the optimal dose and interval of T+C PrEP to maximize protection in a changing variant climate.

BACKGROUND:Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (T + C) is authorized for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), yet patient-reported outcomes after injection are not well described. Furthermore, changes in risk tolerance after T + C PrEP have not been reported, of interest given uncertain activity against emerging Omicron sublineages. METHODS:Within a national prospective observational study, SOTRs who reported receiving T + C were surveyed for 3 months to ascertain: (1) local and systemic reactogenicity, (2) severe adverse events with focus on cardiovascular and alloimmune complications, and (3) breakthrough COVID-19, contextualized through (4) changes in attitudes regarding COVID-19 risk and behaviors. RESULTS:At 7 days postinjection, the most common reactions were mild fatigue (29%), headache (20%), and pain at injection sites (18%). Severe adverse events were uncommon; over 3 months of follow-up, 4/392 (1%) reported acute rejection and one (.3%) reported a myocardial infarction. Breakthrough COVID-19 occurred in 9%, 16-129 days after receiving full dose (300/300 mg) T + C, including two non-ICU hospitalizations. Most surveyed SOTRs (65%) felt T + C PrEP was likely to reduce their COVID-19 risk, and 70% reported increased willingness to engage in social activities such as visiting friends. However, few felt safe to return to in-person work (20%) or cease public mask-wearing (15%). CONCLUSIONS:In this prospective study of patient-reported outcomes, T + C was well tolerated with few serious events. Several COVID-19 breakthroughs were reported, notable as most SOTRs reported changes in risk tolerance after T + C. These results aid counseling of SOTRs regarding real-world safety and effectiveness of T + C.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight. METHODS:Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes. RESULTS:One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS:For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.

Repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) is the preferred treatment for patients with graft failure. Changing allocation policies, widening the risk profile of recipients, and improving dialysis care may have altered the survival benefit of a re-KT. We characterized trends in re-KT survival benefit over 3 decades and tested whether it differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and panel reactive assay (PRA). By using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we identified 25 419 patients who underwent a re-KT from 1990 to 2019 and 25 419 waitlisted counterfactuals from the same year with the same waitlisted time following graft failure. In the adjusted analysis, a re-KT was associated with a lower risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.65). By using the 1990-1994 era as a reference (aHR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85), incremental improvements in the survival benefit were noted (1995-1999: aHR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78: 2000-2004: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.55-0.63: 2005-2009: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: 2010-2014: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62: 2015-2019: aHR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73). The survival benefit of a re-KT was noted in both younger (age = 18-64 years: aHR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65) and older patients (age ≥65 years: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; P_interaction = .45). Patients of all races/ethnicities demonstrated similar benefits with a re-KT. However, it varied by the sex of the recipient (female patients: aHR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: male patients: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68; P_interaction = .004) and PRA (0-20: aHR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74: 21-80: aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66; P_interaction = .02; >80: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61; P_interaction< .001). Our findings support the continued practice of a re-KT and efforts to overcome the medical, immunologic, and surgical challenges of a re-KT.

OBJECTIVE:The feasibility and 6-month outcome safety of lung transplants (LTs) from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors for HCV-seronegative recipients (R-) were established in 2019, but longer-term safety and uptake of this practice nationally remain unknown. METHODS:testing, rank-sum testing, and Cox regression to compare posttransplant outcomes between HCV D+/R- and D-/R- LT recipients. RESULTS:HCV D+/R- LT increased from 2 to 97/year; centers performing HCV D+/R- LT increased from 1 to 25. HCV D+/R- versus HCV D-/R- LT recipients had more obstructive disease (35.7% vs 23.3%, P < .001), lower lung allocation score (36.5 vs 41.1, P < .001), and longer waitlist time (P = .002). HCV D+/R- LT had similar risk of acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.87; P = .58), extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (aOR, 1.94; P = .10), and tracheostomy (aOR, 0.42; P = .16); similar median hospital stay (P = .07); and lower risk of ventilator > 48 hours (aOR, 0.68; P = .006). Adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, risk of all-cause graft failure and mortality were similar at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years for HCV D+/R- versus HCV D-/R- LT (all P > .1), as well as for high- (≥20/year) versus low-volume LT centers and high- (≥5/year) versus low-volume HCV D+/R- LT centers (all P > .5). CONCLUSIONS:HCV D+/R- and HCV D-/R- LT have similar outcomes at 3 years posttransplant. These results underscore the safety of HCV D+/R- LT and the potential benefit of expanding this practice further.

BACKGROUND:Postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) is an increasingly recognized phenomenon and manifested by long-lasting cognitive, mental, and physical symptoms beyond the acute infection period. We aimed to estimate the frequency of PASC symptoms in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and compared their frequency between those with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization and those who did not require hospitalization. METHODS:A survey consisting of 7 standardized questionnaires was administered to 111 SOT recipients with history of SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed >4 wk before survey administration. RESULTS:Median (interquartile range) time from SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was 167 d (138-221). Hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 33 (30%) participants. Symptoms after the COVID episode were perceived as following: significant trauma (53%), cognitive decline (50%), fatigue (41%), depression (36%), breathing problems (35%), anxiety (23%), dysgeusia (22%), dysosmia (21%), and pain (19%). Hospitalized patients had poorer median scores in cognition (Quick Dementia Rating System survey score: 2.0 versus 0.5, P = 0.02), quality of life (Health-related Quality of Life survey: 2.0 versus 1.0, P = 0.015), physical health (Global physical health scale: 10.0 versus 11.0, P = 0.005), respiratory status (Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale: 1.0 versus 0.0, P = 0.035), and pain (Pain score: 3 versus 0 out of 10, P = 0.003). Among patients with infection >6 mo prior, some symptoms were still present as following: abnormal breathing (42%), cough (40%), dysosmia (29%), and dysgeusia (34%). CONCLUSIONS:SOT recipients reported a high frequency of PASC symptoms. Multidisciplinary approach is needed to care for these patients beyond the acute phase.