Search

Background: Kidney transplant (KT) candidates with HIV face higher mortality on the waitlist compared with candidates without HIV. Because the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act has expanded the donor pool to allow donors with HIV (D + ), it is crucial to understand whether this has impacted transplant rates for this population., Methods: Using a linkage between the HOPE in Action trial (NCT03500315) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 324 candidates listed for D + kidneys (HOPE) compared with 46 025 candidates not listed for D + kidneys (non-HOPE) at the same centers between April 26, 2018, and May 24, 2022. We characterized KT rate, KT type (D + , false-positive [FP; donor with false-positive HIV testing], D - [donor without HIV], living donor [LD]) and quantified the association between HOPE enrollment and KT rate using multivariable Cox regression with center-level clustering; HOPE was a time-varying exposure., Results: HOPE candidates were more likely male individuals (79% versus 62%), Black (73% versus 35%), and publicly insured (71% versus 52%; P  < 0.001). Within 4.5 y, 70% of HOPE candidates received a KT (41% D + , 34% D - , 20% FP, 4% LD) versus 43% of non-HOPE candidates (74% D - , 26% LD). Conversely, 22% of HOPE candidates versus 39% of non-HOPE candidates died or were removed from the waitlist. Median KT wait time was 10.3 mo for HOPE versus 60.8 mo for non-HOPE candidates ( P  < 0.001). After adjustment, HOPE candidates had a 3.30-fold higher KT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval, 2.14-5.10; P  < 0.001)., Conclusions: Listing for D + kidneys within HOPE trials was associated with a higher KT rate and shorter wait time, supporting the expansion of this practice for candidates with HIV., Competing Interests: D.L.S. receives honoraria for AstraZeneca, CareDx, Houston Methodist, Northwell Health, Optum Health Education, Sanofi, and WebMd, as well as consulting fees from AstraZeneca, CareDx, Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Regeneron, and Springer Publishing. C.M.D. received honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee. V.S. received research grant support from Eli Lilly and Company and consulting fees from DiaSorin SpA. M.P. received grant support from Merck, Hologic, Moderna, Shire/Takeda, and Pfizer, as well as provided consultation to/serves on the advisory board for Rebiotix, Takeda, and Union Therapeutics. C.B.S. has received grants paid to her institution from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Abbott, Merck, Gilead, Chimerix, Shire/Takeda, Schering-Plough, Ablynx, Janssen, Ansun Biopharma, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. G.H. is a recipient of research grants from Allovir, Karius, and AstraZeneca. G.H. serves on the scientific advisory boards of Karius and AstraZeneca and has received honoraria from MDOutlook and MAD-ID/ID Connect. J.H. is a recipient of grants paid to his institution from Pfizer, Janssen, and Scynexis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the context of the organ shortage, donation after circulatory death (DCD) provides an opportunity to expand the donor pool. Although deceased-donor liver transplantation from DCD donors has expanded, DCD livers continue to be discarded at elevated rates; the use of DCD livers from older donors, or donors with comorbidities, is controversial., Methods: Using US registry data from 2009 to 2020, we identified 1564 candidates on whose behalf a DCD liver offer was accepted ("acceptors") and 16 981 candidates on whose behalf the same DCD offers were declined ("decliners"). We characterized outcomes of decliners using a competing risk framework and estimated the survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) of accepting DCD livers using Cox regression., Results: Within 10 y of DCD offer decline, 50.9% of candidates died or were removed from the waitlist before transplantation with any type of allograft. DCD acceptors had lower mortality compared with decliners at 10 y postoffer (35.4% versus 48.9%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for candidate covariates, DCD offer acceptance was associated with a 46% reduction in mortality (0.54 [0.49-0.61]). Acceptors of older (age ≥50), obese (body mass index ≥30), hypertensive, nonlocal, diabetic, and increased risk DCD livers had 44% (0.56 [0.42-0.73]), 40% (0.60 [0.49-0.74]), 48% (0.52 [0.41-0.66]), 46% (0.54 [0.45-0.65]), 32% (0.68 [0.43-1.05]), and 45% (0.55 [0.42-0.72]) lower mortality risk compared with DCD decliners, respectively., Conclusions: DCD offer acceptance is associated with considerable long-term survival benefits for liver transplant candidates, even with older DCD donors or donors with comorbidities. Increased recovery and utilization of DCD livers should be encouraged., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes., Methods: We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression., Results: DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56)., Conclusions: Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We studied the safety and reactogenicity SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in transplant recipients because immunosuppressed patients were excluded from vaccine trials., Methods: US transplant recipients were recruited into this prospective cohort study through social media; those who completed the full vaccine series between December 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 were included. We collected demographics, medical history, and safety information within 7 d after doses 1 and 2 (D1, D2). Associations between characteristics and reactions were evaluated using modified Poisson regression., Results: We studied 741 transplant recipients who underwent BNT162b2 (54%) or mRNA-1273 (46%) vaccination. Median (interquartile range) age was 60 (44-69) y, 57% were female, and 10% were non-White. Although local site reactions decreased after D2 (85% D1 versus 78% D2, P < 0.001), systemic reactions increased (49% D1 versus 69% D2, P < 0.001). Younger participants were more likely to develop systemic symptoms after D1 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] per 10 y = 0.850.900.94, P < 0.001) and D2 (aIRR per 10 y = 0.910.930.96, P < 0.001). Participants who experienced pain (aIRR = 1.111.662.47, P = 0.01) or redness (aIRR = 1.833.928.41, P < 0.01) were more likely to develop an antibody response to D1 of mRNA vaccines. No anaphylaxis, neurologic diagnoses, or SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses were reported. Infections were minimal (3% after D1, <0.01% after D2). One patient reported incident acute rejection post-D2., Conclusions: In solid organ transplant recipients undergoing mRNA vaccination, reactogenicity was similar to that reported in the original trials. Severe reactions were rare. These early safety data may help address vaccine hesitancy in transplant recipients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transplant recipients with HIV may have worse outcomes with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to impaired T-cell function coupled with immunosuppressive drugs. Alternatively, immunosuppression might reduce inflammatory complications and/or antiretrovirals could be protective., Methods: Prospective reporting of all cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection was required within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, a cohort of kidney and liver transplant recipients with HIV who have received organs from donors with and without HIV at 32 transplant centers in the United States., Results: Between March 20, 2020 and September 25, 2020, there were 11 COVID-19 cases among 291 kidney and liver recipients with HIV (4%). In those with COVID-19, median age was 59 y, 10 were male, 8 were kidney recipients, and 5 had donors with HIV. A higher proportion of recipients with COVID-19 compared with the overall HOPE in the Action cohort were Hispanic (55% versus 12%) and received transplants in New York City (73% versus 34%, P < 0.05). Most (10/11, 91%) were hospitalized. High-level oxygen support was required in 7 and intensive care in 5; 1 participant opted for palliative care instead of transfer to the intensive care unit. HIV RNA was undetectable in all. Median absolute lymphocyte count was 0.3 × 103 cells/μL. Median CD4 pre-COVID-19 was 298 cells/μL, declining to <200 cells/μl in 6/7 with measurements on admission. Treatment included high-dose steroids (n = 6), tocilizumab (n = 3), remdesivir (n = 2), and convalescent plasma (n = 2). Four patients (36%) died., Conclusions: Within a national prospective cohort of kidney and liver transplant recipients with HIV, we report high mortality from COVID-19., Competing Interests: D.L.S. reports speaking honoraria from Novartis. C.M.D. reports serving on a grant review committee for Gilead Sciences as well as research grants paid to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline. C.B.S. has received grants paid to her institution from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Abbott, Merck, Gilead, Chimerix, Shire, Schering, Ablynx, and Janssen. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Donor livers with ≥30% macrosteatosis (steatotic livers) represent a possible expansion to the donor pool, but are frequently discarded as they are associated with an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. We hypothesized that there are certain recipient phenotypes that would tolerate donor steatosis well, and are therefore best suited to receive these grafts., Methods: Using national registry data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69 394 recipients of nonsteatotic (<30%) livers. We identified recipient factors that amplified the impact of donor steatosis on mortality and graft loss using interaction analysis, classifying recipients without these factors as preferred recipients. We compared mortality and graft loss with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers in preferred and nonpreferred recipients using Cox regression., Results: Preferred recipients of steatotic livers were determined to be first-time recipients with a model for end-stage liver disease 15-34, without primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant. Preferred recipients had no increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.921.041.16; P = 0.5) or graft loss (HR: 0.931.031.15; P = 0.5) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had a 41% increased mortality risk (HR: 1.171.411.70; P < 0.001) and 39% increased risk of graft loss (HR: 1.161.391.66; P < 0.001) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers., Conclusions: The risks of liver transplantation with steatotic donor livers could be minimized by appropriate recipient matching.

Background: There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization., Methods: To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression., Results: Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08)., Conclusions: We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.