Search

Background: The transplantation of human organs, and some human tissues, is often the only life-saving therapy available for serious and life-threatening congenital, inherited or acquired diseases. However, it is associated with a risk of transmission of communicable diseases from donor to recipient. It is imperative to understand the characteristics of the donor population (including both potential and actual donors) to inform policies that protect recipient safety. The Tissue and Organ Donor Epidemiology Study (TODES) was a pilot project designed to identify and collect standardized information on deceased persons referred for organ, tissue and/or eye donation, and to estimate (to the extent possible) infectious disease prevalence and incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) in this population. TODES is summarized here to shed light on addressable limitations on accessing data needed for transplant recipient safety. Limitations, future research needs and potential pathways to solve the remaining data needs are explored., Methods: Retrospective data for all deceased donors during a 5-year period from 2009 to 2013 were obtained from participating organ procurement organizations (OPOs), tissue establishments and eye banks. These decedent data were used to ascertain whether the available real-world data (RWD) could be used to inform donor screening and testing policy., Results: The TODES database contains 291 848 records received from nine OPOs and 42 451 records received from four eye banks. Data were analysed from deceased donors with at least one organ, tissue or ocular tissue recovered with the intent to transplant. Results for potential donors were not analysed. Available RWD at the time of the TODES study were not fit-for-purpose to help characterize the organ, tissue and eye donor populations and/or to inform donor screening policy., Conclusions: Recent advances in electronic data collection systems make it more realistic to now collect fit-for-purpose RWD that address the research needed to improve transplant safety., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate All TODES data were collected on deceased donors, who are not included in the definition of human subjects (45 CFR §46.102(e)). Additionally, OPTN data are collected with the intention of making data available for public and scientific uses [31]. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

The Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC) of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network focuses on issues related to the transmission of disease through organ transplantation. Providing a review of potential cases of transmission, translating aggregate data into actionable education and guidance for the transplant community, and providing input for policy development, DTAC aims to improve the safety of organ transplantation through a reduction in donor-derived transmission events. Through its nearly 20-year history, DTAC has provided education, guidance, and policy, addressed numerous emerging infections, and continuously focused on the community's understanding of risk assessment related to donor-derived transmission. By updating the DTAC mission to both decrease transmission and safely expand the donor pool with additional guidance to safely use organs previously not considered for transplantation due to transmission concerns, the Committee's role will remain critical., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Kidney transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV is an emerging practice. It has been performed since 2016 under the U.S. congressional HIV Organ Policy Equity Act and is currently approved for research only. The Department of Health and Human Services is considering expanding the procedure to clinical practice, but data are limited to small case series that did not include donors without HIV as controls., Methods: In an observational study conducted at 26 U.S. centers, we compared transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors with HIV and donors without HIV to recipients with HIV. The primary outcome was a safety event (a composite of death from any cause, graft loss, serious adverse event, HIV breakthrough infection, persistent failure of HIV treatment, or opportunistic infection), assessed for noninferiority (margin for the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, 3.00). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, survival without graft loss, rejection, infection, cancer, and HIV superinfection., Results: We enrolled 408 transplantation candidates, of whom 198 received a kidney from a deceased donor; 99 received a kidney from a donor with HIV and 99 from a donor without HIV. The adjusted hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.38), which showed noninferiority. The following secondary outcomes were similar whether the donor had HIV or not: overall survival at 1 year (94% vs. 95%) and 3 years (85% vs. 87%), survival without graft loss at 1 year (93% vs. 90%) and 3 years (84% vs. 81%), and rejection at 1 year (13% vs. 21%) and 3 years (21% vs. 24%). The incidence of serious adverse events, infections, surgical or vascular complications, and cancer was similar in the groups. The incidence of HIV breakthrough infection was higher among recipients of kidneys from donors with HIV (incidence rate ratio, 3.14; 95%, CI, 1.02 to 9.63), with one potential HIV superinfection among the 58 recipients in this group with sequence data and no persistent failures of HIV treatment., Conclusions: In this observational study of kidney transplantation in persons with HIV, transplantation from donors with HIV appeared to be noninferior to that from donors without HIV. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03500315.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

With the increasing prevalence of marijuana use in the US, many deceased organ donors have a history of marijuana use, raising concerns about infectious risks to transplant recipients. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in which exposed donors were those with recent marijuana use (in the prior 12 months) and unexposed donors were those with no recent marijuana use. Primary outcomes included the following: (1) positive donor cultures for bacteria or fungi, (2) recipient infection due to bacteria or fungi within 3 months posttransplant, and (3) recipient graft failure or death within 12 months posttransplant. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the relationship between donor marijuana use and each outcome. A total of 658 recipients who received organs from 394 donors were included. Recent marijuana use was not associated with donor culture positivity (aOR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.39-1.81, P = .65), recipient infection (aHR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.76-1.38, P = .90), or recipient graft failure or death (aHR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.90-3.02, P = .11). Our data suggest that organs from donors with a history of recent marijuana use do not pose significant infectious risks in the early posttransplant period., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation. Emily Blumberg receives research support from Merck, Takeda, Hologic, and Scynexis; was a member of a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Amplyx; and is a member of Scientific Advisory Committees for Merck and Takeda. Jennifer Han was affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania during the conduct of this research and is now employed by, and holds shares in, the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies. Ebbing Lautenbach is a member of a DSMB for Merck and is a member of a scientific advisory committee for Paratek and Shionogi. None of these conflicts are relevant to this article. All other authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for preexposure prophylaxis (SMA-PrEP) offered patients who were immunocompromised another option for protection. However, SMA-PrEP posed administrative, operational, and ethical challenges for health care facilities, resulting in few patients receiving them. Although the first SMA-PrEP medication, tixagevimab and cilgavimab, had its authorization revoked due to compromised in vitro efficacy, new SMA-PrEP medications are currently completing clinical trials. This article provides an operational framework for administrative organization, patient identification and prioritization, equitable medication allocation, medication ordering and administration, and patient tracking., Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluating our hospital's SMA-PrEP administration strategy was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with receipt of SMA-PrEP., Results: Despite the barriers in administering this medication and the scarcity of resources, our hospital was able to administer at least 1 dose of SMA-PrEP to 1359 of 5902 (23.0%) eligible patients. Even with the steps taken to promote equitable allocation, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that there were still differences by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. As compared with patients who identified as Black, patients who identified as White (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.46-2.33), Asian (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.46), and Hispanic (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44) were more likely to receive SMA-PrEP. When compared with patients with low socioeconomic status, patients with high socioeconomic status (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.78) were more likely to be allocated SMA-PrEP., Conclusions: Despite efforts to mitigate health care disparities, differences by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status still arose in patients receiving SMA-PrEP., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. D. A. J. has received personal fees for advisory board participation and/or consulting from Biogen, BMS, Cycle Pharma, Horizon, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, TG Therapeutics, and Sanofi-Genzyme and grant support to the University of Pennsylvania from Biogen Idec, Roche/Genentech, Merck/EMD Serono, and Novartis. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Chronic kidney disease affects an estimated 37 million people in the United States; of these,>800,000 have end-stage renal disease requiring chronic dialysis or a kidney transplant to survive. Despite efforts to increase the donor kidney supply, approximately 100,000 people are registered on the kidney transplant wait-list with no measurable decrease over the past 2 decades. The outcomes of kidney transplantation are significantly better than for chronic dialysis: kidney transplant recipients have lower rates of mortality and cardiovascular events and better quality of life, but wait-list time matters. Time on dialysis waiting for a deceased-donor kidney is a strong independent risk factor for outcomes after a kidney transplant. Deceased-donor recipients with wait-list times on dialysis of<6 months have graft survival rates equivalent to living-donor recipients with waitlist times on dialysis of>2 years. In 2021,>12,000 people had been on the kidney transplant waitlist for ≥5 years. As the gap between the demand for and availability of donor kidneys for allotransplantation continues to widen, alternative strategies are needed to provide a stable, sufficient, and timely supply. A strategy that is gaining momentum toward clinical application is pig-to-human kidney xenotransplantation. This report summarizes the proceedings of a meeting convened on April 11-12, 2022, by the National Kidney Foundation to review and assess the state of pig-to-human kidney xenotransplantation as a potential cure for end-stage renal disease., (Copyright © 2024 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Antimicrobial misuse contributes to antimicrobial resistance in thoracic transplant (TTx) and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) recipients. This study uses a modified Delphi method to define the expected appropriate antimicrobial prescribing for the common clinical scenarios encountered in TTx and MCS recipients., Methods: An online questionnaire on managing 10 common infectious disease syndromes was submitted to a multidisciplinary Delphi panel of 25 experts from various disciplines. Consensus was predefined as 80% agreement for each question. Questions where consensus was not achieved were discussed during live virtual live sessions adapted by an independent process expert., Results: An online survey of 62 questions related to 10 infectious disease syndromes was submitted to the Delphi panel. In the first round of the online questionnaire, consensus on antimicrobial management was reached by 6.5% (4/62). In Round 2 online live discussion, the remaining 58 questions were discussed among the Delphi Panel members using a virtual meeting platform. Consensus was reached among 62% (36/58) of questions. Agreement was not reached regarding the antimicrobial management of the following six clinical syndromes: (1) Burkholderia cepacia pneumonia (duration of therapy); (2) Mycobacterium abscessus (intra-operative antimicrobials); (3) invasive aspergillosis (treatment of culture-negative but positive BAL galactomannan) (duration of therapy); (4) respiratory syncytial virus (duration of antiviral therapy); (5) left ventricular assist device deep infection (initial empirical antimicrobial coverage) and (6) CMV (duration of secondary prophylaxis)., Conclusion: This Delphi panel developed consensus-based recommendations for 10 infectious clinical syndromes seen in TTx and MCS recipients., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented a significant challenge for Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) with the use of SARS-CoV-2 positive donors varying widely. This study used detailed single OPO data to determine the success of using SARS-CoV-2 positive donors., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study including all SARS-CoV-2 positive donors referred to the Gift of Life OPO from January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2023. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize referral and organ utilization., Results: There were 861 organ referrals with 1 positive SARS-Cov-2 test: 282 were ruled out with telephone evaluation, 431 referrals were ruled out with onsite evaluation ("evaluated nondonors") and 148 became donors. For donors who had both nasopharyngeal and lower respiratory testing completed, there was notable result discordance observed. Median cycle threshold (Ct) values were similar between donors and evaluated nondonors with no change in median donor Ct values over the study period. Transplanted organs from COVID-positive donors included 27 hearts, 88 livers, 5 pancreata, and 107 kidneys; no lung donation occurred. The proportion of COVID-positive donors significantly increased over the study period., Conclusion: This large volume donor referral study demonstrates increasing COVID-19 referrals progressing to donation over time, supporting the increased use of these donors for nonlung transplantation., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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.)