Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:Despite the revolutionary role of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus (HCV), the treatment timing for liver transplant candidates remains controversial. We hypothesize that deferring treatment until after liver transplantation improves access to a larger and higher-quality donor pool without a detrimental impact on post-liver transplantation outcomes. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This single-center study includes recipients that underwent deceased-donor liver transplant with HCV as the primary indication January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. For recipients that were untreated (n = 87) versus treated (n = 42) pre-LT, we compared post-LT mortality using Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment-weighted data. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.06). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Deferring HCV treatment improves access to higher-quality donors and may improve post-LT survival.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a variable course across the United States. Understanding its evolving impact on heart and lung transplantation (HT and LT) will help with planning for next phases of this pandemic as well as future ones.

BACKGROUND:In March 2020, COVID-19 infections began to rise exponentially in the USA, placing substantial burden on the healthcare system. As a result, there was a rapid change in transplant practices and policies, with cessation of most procedures. Our goal was to understand changes to pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) at the national level during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS:Using SRTR data, we examined changes in pediatric waitlist registration, waitlist removal or inactivation, and deceased donor and living donor (DDKT/LDKT) events during the start of the disease transmission in the USA compared with the same time the previous year. RESULTS:) in states with high vs. low COVID activity. Transplant recipients during the pandemic were more likely to have received a DDKT, but had similar calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) values, waitlist time, and cause of kidney failure as before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic initially reduced access to kidney transplantation among pediatric patients in the USA but has not had a sustained effect.

BACKGROUND:While several studies have observed that solid organ transplant recipients experience diminished antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, data specific to heart and lung transplant (HT/LT) recipients remains sparse. METHODS:US adult HT and LT recipients completed their vaccine series between January 7 and April 10, 2021. Reactogencity and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody were assessed after a priming dose (D1) and booster dose (D2). Modified Poisson regression with robust variance estimator was used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and antibody development. RESULTS:Of 134 heart recipients, there were 38% non-responders (D1-/D2-), 48% booster responders (D1-/D2+), and 14% priming dose responders (D1+/D2+). Of 103 lung recipients, 64% were non-responders, 27% were booster responders, and 9% were priming dose responders. Lung recipients were less likely to develop antibodies (p < .001). Priming dose antibody response was associated with younger recipient age (p = .04), transplant-to-vaccination time ≥6 years (p < .01), and lack of anti-metabolite maintenance immunosuppression (p < .001). Pain at injection site was the most commonly reported reaction (85% after D1, 76% after D2). Serious reactions were rare, the most common being fatigue (2% after D1 and 3% after D2). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:HT and LT recipients experienced diminished antibody response following vaccination; reactogenicity was comparable to that of the general population. LT recipients may exhibit a more impaired antibody response than HT recipients. While current recommendations are to vaccinate eligible candidates and recipients, further studies characterizing the cell-mediated immune response and clinical efficacy of these vaccines in this population are needed.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant recipients have higher risk of infectious diseases due to their reliance on immunosuppression. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, some clinicians might have opted for less potent immunosuppressive agents to counterbalance the novel infectious risk. We conducted a nationwide study to characterize immunosuppression use and subsequent clinical outcomes during the first 5 months of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS:Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied all kidney-only recipients in the United States from January 1, 2017, to March 12, 2020 ("prepandemic" era; n = 64 849) and from March 13, 2020, to July 31, 2020 ("pandemic" era; n = 5035). We compared the use of lymphocyte-depleting agents (versus basiliximab or no induction) and maintenance steroids (versus steroid avoidance/withdrawal) in the pandemic era compared with the prepandemic era. Then, we compared early posttransplant outcomes by immunosuppression regimen during the pandemic era. RESULTS:Recipients in the pandemic era were substantially less likely to receive lymphocyte-depleting induction agents compared with their prepandemic counterparts (aOR = 0.400.530.69); similar trends were found across subgroups of state-level COVID-19 incidence, donor type, and recipient age. However, lymphocyte-depleting induction agents were associated with decreased rejection during admission (aOR = 0.110.230.47) but not with increased mortality in the pandemic era (aHR = 0.130.471.66). On the other hand, the use of maintenance steroids versus early steroid withdrawal remained similar (aOR = 0.711.071.62). CONCLUSIONS:The use of lymphocyte-depleting induction agents has decreased in favor of basiliximab and no induction during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this shift might have resulted in increases in rejection with no clear reductions in posttransplant mortality.

Induction therapy with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) in low-risk kidney transplant recipients (KTR) remains controversial, given the associated increased risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. This natural experiment compared 12-month clinical outcomes in low-risk KTR without CMV prophylaxis (January/3/13-September/16/15) receiving no induction or a single 3 mg/kg dose of rATG. We used logistic regression to characterize delayed graft function (DGF), negative binomial to characterize length of hospital stay (LOS), and Cox regression to characterize acute rejection (AR), CMV infection, graft loss, death, and hospital readmissions. Recipients receiving 3 mg/kg rATG had an 81% lower risk of AR (aHR _0.14 0.19_0.25 , P < 0.001) but no increased rate of hospital readmissions because of infections (_0.68 0.91_1.21 , P = 0.5). There was no association between 3 mg/kg rATG and CMV infection/disease (aHR _0.86 1.10_1.40 , P = 0.5), even when the analysis was stratified according to recipient CMV serostatus positive (aHR _0.94 1.25_1.65 , P = 0.1) and negative (aHR _0.28 0.57_1.16 , P = 0.1). There was no association between 3 mg/kg rATG and mortality (aHR _0.51 1.25_3.08 , P = 0.6), and graft loss (aHR _0.34 0.73_1.55 , P = 0.4). Among low-risk KTR receiving no CMV pharmacological prophylaxis, 3 mg/kg rATG induction was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of AR without an increased risk of CMV infection, regardless of recipient pretransplant CMV serostatus.

BACKGROUND:Approximately 30% of kidney transplant recipients undergo early steroid withdrawal (ESW) for maintenance immunosuppression. However, there is no consensus on which patients are suitable for ESW, and transplant centers may disagree on how various clinical factors characterize individual recipients' suitability for ESW. METHODS:To examine center-level variation in the association of clinical factors with the choice of ESW, we studied 206 544 kidney transplant recipients from 278 centers in 2002-2017 using SRTR data. We conducted multi-level logistic regressions to characterize the association of clinical factors with the choice of ESW at each transplant center. RESULTS:). When estimated at each center, this odds ratio was significantly lower than the population odds ratio at 48 (17.3%) centers and significantly higher at 28 (10.1%) centers. CONCLUSIONS:We have observed apparent inconsistencies across transplant centers in the practice of tailoring ESW to the recipient's risk profile. Standardized guidelines for ESW tailoring are needed.

Immunosuppression and comorbidities might place solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients at higher risk from COVID-19, as suggested by recent case series. We compared 45 SOT vs. 2427 non-SOT patients who were admitted with COVID-19 to our health-care system (March 1, 2020 - August 21, 2020), evaluating hospital length-of-stay and inpatient mortality using competing-risks regression. We compared trajectories of WHO COVID-19 severity scale using mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression, adjusting for severity score at admission. SOT and non-SOT patients had comparable age, sex, and race, but SOT recipients were more likely to have diabetes (60% vs. 34%, p < .001), hypertension (69% vs. 44%, p = .001), HIV (7% vs. 1.4%, p = .024), and peripheral vascular disorders (19% vs. 8%, p = .018). There were no statistically significant differences between SOT and non-SOT in maximum illness severity score (p = .13), length-of-stay (sHR: _0.9 1.1_1.4 , p = .5), or mortality (sHR: _0.1 0.4_1.6 , p = .19), although the severity score on admission was slightly lower for SOT (median [IQR] 3 [3, 4]) than for non-SOT (median [IQR] 4 [3-4]) (p = .042) Despite a higher risk profile, SOT recipients had a faster decline in disease severity over time (OR = _0.76 0.81_0.86 , p < .001) compared with non-SOT patients. These findings have implications for transplant decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic, and insights about the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on immunosuppressed patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Patients with sickle cell disease-associated kidney failure have high mortality, which might be lowered by kidney transplantation. However, because they show higher post-transplant mortality compared with patients with other kidney failure etiologies, kidney transplantation remains controversial in this population, potentially limiting their chance of receiving transplantation. We aimed to quantify the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation in this population and determine the chance of receiving transplantation with sickle cell disease as the cause of kidney failure as compared with other etiologies of kidney failure. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:Using a national registry, we studied all adults with kidney failure who began maintenance dialysis or were added to the kidney transplant waiting list in 1998-2017. To quantify the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation, we measured the absolute risk difference and hazard ratio for mortality in matched pairs of transplant recipients versus waitlisted candidates in the sickle cell and control groups. To compare the chance of receiving transplantation, we estimated hazard ratios for receiving transplantation in the sickle cell and control groups, treating death as a competing risk. RESULTS:=0.8). Nonetheless, the sickle cell group was less likely to receive transplantation than the controls (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.87). Similar disparities were found among waitlisted candidates (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.72). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with sickle cell disease-associated kidney failure exhibited similar decreases in mortality associated with kidney transplantation as compared with those with other kidney failure etiologies. Nonetheless, the sickle cell population was less likely to receive transplantation, even after waitlist registration.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) have pre-existing donor-specific antibody (DSA) that, despite desensitization, may persist or reappear with resulting consequences, including delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). To quantify the risk of DGF and AR in ILDKT and downstream effects, we compared 1406 ILDKTr to 17 542 compatible LDKT recipients (CLDKTr) using a 25-center cohort with novel SRTR linkage. We characterized DSA strength as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC). DGF occurred in 3.1% of CLDKT, 3.5% of PLNF, 5.7% of PFNC, and 7.6% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher DGF for PCC recipients (aOR = _1.03 1.68_2.72 ). However, the impact of DGF on mortality and DCGF risk was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction > .1). AR developed in 8.4% of CLDKT, 18.2% of PLNF, 21.3% of PFNC, and 21.7% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher AR (aOR PLNF = _1.45 2.09_3.02 ; PFNC = _1.67 2.40_3.46 ; PCC = _1.48 2.24_3.37 ). Although the impact of AR on mortality was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction = .1), its impact on DCGF risk was less consequential for ILDKT (aHR = _1.34 1.62_1.95 ) than CLDKT (aHR = _1.96 2.29_2.67 ) (p interaction = .004). Providers should consider these risks during preoperative counseling, and strategies to mitigate them should be considered.