Search

Xenotransplantation offers the potential to meet the critical need for heart and lung transplantation presently constrained by the current human donor organ supply. Much was learned over the past decades regarding gene editing to prevent the immune activation and inflammation that cause early organ injury, and strategies for maintenance of immunosuppression to promote longer-term xenograft survival. However, many scientific questions remain regarding further requirements for genetic modification of donor organs, appropriate contexts for xenotransplantation research (including nonhuman primates, recently deceased humans, and living human recipients), and risk of xenozoonotic disease transmission. Related ethical questions include the appropriate selection of clinical trial participants, challenges with obtaining informed consent, animal rights and welfare considerations, and cost. Research involving recently deceased humans has also emerged as a potentially novel way to understand how xeno-organs will impact the human body. Clinical xenotransplantation and research involving decedents also raise ethical questions and will require consensus regarding regulatory oversight and protocol review. These considerations and the related opportunities for xenotransplantation research were discussed in a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and are summarized in this meeting report., 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. Kiran K. Khush: recipient of NHLBI research grant on donor heart evaluation for transplantation (R01HL125303). Brendan Parent: recipient of Applebaum Foundation grant to study ethics of xenotransplantation. Karen J. Maschke and Michael Gusmano: recipients of NCATS research grant on ethical translation of xenotransplantation clinical trials (1R01TR003844-0). The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Organ transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV-positive donors is critical for safety., Methods: We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) test results within the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262, NCT03500315, and NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV-positive versus FP donors. We measured CD4 T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), coreceptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection, using mass spectrometry in HIV-positive donors., Results: Between March 2016 and March 2020, 92 donors (58 HIV positive, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidneys and 46 livers). Each year the number of donors increased. The prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs 0%), syphilis (16% vs 0%), and cytomegalovirus (CMV; 91% vs 58%) was higher in HIV-positive versus FP donors; the prevalences of hepatitis C viremia were similar (2% vs 6%). Most HIV-positive donors (71%) had a known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had a VL <400 copies/mL. The median CD4 T-cell count (interquartile range) was 194/µL (77-331/µL), and the median CD4 T-cell percentage was 27.0% (16.8%-36.1%). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history., Conclusion: The use of HIV-positive donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Objectives: Most kidney donors view their experience positively, but some may experience psychosocial and financial burdens. We hypothesized that certain donor characteristics, poor outcome of the recipient, negative perceptions of care, and lack of support may be associated with poor psychosocial outcomes for donors., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: The Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study (RELIVE) examined long-term medical and psychosocial outcomes for kidney donors (at three U.S. transplant centers) who donated between 1963 and 2005. Standardized questionnaires evaluated donor perspectives, recovery time, social support, motivation, financial impact, insurability after donation, and current psychological status. Questionnaires were mailed to 6909 donors., Results: Questionnaires were returned by 2455 donors, who had donated 17 ± 10 years earlier (range, 5-48 years), a response rate of 36%. Most (95%) rated their overall donation experience as good to excellent. Rating the overall donor experience more negatively was associated with donor complications, psychological difficulties, recipient graft failure, and longer time since donation. Nine percent (n=231) reported one or more of the following poor psychosocial outcomes: fair or poor overall donor experience, financial burden, regret or discomfort with decision to donate, or psychological difficulties since donation. Recipient graft failure was the only predictor for reporting one or more of these poor psychosocial outcomes (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 2.34). Donors with lower educational attainment experienced greater financial burden. One of five employed donors took unpaid leave; 2% reported health and life insurability concerns., Conclusions: Although the majority of donors viewed their overall donation experience positively, almost 1 in 10 donors reported at least one negative consequence related to donation. Recipient graft failure was associated with poor psychosocial outcome, defined as one or more of these negative consequences. Some donors were financially disadvantaged, and some experienced insurance difficulties. Interventions to avoid negative psychosocial and financial consequences are warranted., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a controversial indication for liver transplantation (LT) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients because of reportedly poor outcomes. This prospective, multicenter US cohort study compared patient and graft survival for 89 HCV/HIV-coinfected patients and 2 control groups: 235 HCV-monoinfected LT controls and all US transplant recipients who were 65 years old or older. The 3-year patient and graft survival rates were 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 47%-71%] and 53% (95% CI = 40%-64%) for the HCV/HIV patients and 79% (95% CI = 72%-84%) and 74% (95% CI = 66%-79%) for the HCV-infected recipients (P < 0.001 for both), and HIV infection was the only factor significantly associated with reduced patient and graft survival. Among the HCV/HIV patients, older donor age [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.3 per decade], combined kidney-liver transplantation (HR = 3.8), an anti-HCV-positive donor (HR = 2.5), and a body mass index < 21 kg/m(2) (HR = 3.2) were independent predictors of graft loss. For the patients without the last 3 factors, the patient and graft survival rates were similar to those for US LT recipients. The 3-year incidence of treated acute rejection was 1.6-fold higher for the HCV/HIV patients versus the HCV patients (39% versus 24%, log rank P = 0.02), but the cumulative rates of severe HCV disease at 3 years were not significantly different (29% versus 23%, P = 0.21). In conclusion, patient and graft survival rates are lower for HCV/HIV-coinfected LT patients versus HCV-monoinfected LT patients. Importantly, the rates of treated acute rejection (but not the rates of HCV disease severity) are significantly higher for HCV/HIV-coinfected recipients versus HCV-infected recipients. Our results indicate that HCV per se is not a contraindication to LT in HIV patients, but recipient and donor selection and the management of acute rejection strongly influence outcomes., (Copyright © 2012 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)