Uptake and 1-year outcomes of lung transplantation for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: End-stage lung disease from severe COVID-19 infection is an increasingly common indication for lung transplantation (LT), but there are limited data on outcomes. We evaluated 1-year COVID-19 LT outcomes. METHODS: We identified all adult US LT recipients January 2020 to October 2022 in the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients, using diagnosis codes to identify recipients transplanted for COVID-19. We used multivariable regression to compare in-hospital acute rejection, prolonged ventilator support, tracheostomy, dialysis, and 1-year mortality between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 recipients, adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics. RESULTS: LT for COVID-19 increased from 0.8% to 10.7% of total LT volume during 2020 to 2021. The number of centers performing LT for COVID-19 increased from 12 to 50. Recipients transplanted for COVID-19 were younger; were more likely to be male and Hispanic; were more likely to be on a ventilator, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and dialysis pre-LT; were more likely to receive bilateral LT; and had higher lung allocation score and shorter waitlist time than other recipients (all P values < .001). COVID-19 LT had higher risk of prolonged ventilator support (adjusted odds ratio, 2.28; P < .001), tracheostomy (adjusted odds ratio 5.3; P < .001), and longer length of stay (median, 27 vs 19 days; P < .001). Risk of in-hospital acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; P = .95) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .12) were similar for COVID-19 LTs and LTs for other indications, even accounting for center-level differences. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 LT is associated with higher risk of immediate postoperative complications but similar risk of 1-year mortality despite more severe pre-LT illness. These encouraging results support the ongoing use of LT for COVID-19-related lung disease.

Heterologous versus homologous boosting elicits qualitatively distinct, BA.5-cross-reactive T cells in transplant recipients.

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 subvariant escapes vaccination-induced neutralizing antibodies because of mutations in the spike (S) protein. Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) develop high COVID-19 morbidity and poor Omicron variant recognition after COVID-19 vaccination. T cell responses may provide a second line of defense. Therefore, understanding which vaccine regimens induce robust, conserved T cell responses is critical.MethodsWe evaluated anti-S IgG titers, subvariant pseudo-neutralization, and S-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from SOTRs in a national, prospective, observational trial (n = 75). Participants were selected if they received 3 doses of mRNA (homologous boosting) or 2 doses of mRNA followed by Ad26.COV2.S (heterologous boosting).ResultsHomologous boosting with 3 mRNA doses induced the highest anti-S IgG titers. However, antibodies induced by both vaccine regimens demonstrated lower pseudo-neutralization against BA.5 compared with the ancestral strain. In contrast, vaccine-induced S-specific T cells maintained cross-reactivity against BA.5 compared with ancestral recognition. Homologous boosting induced higher frequencies of activated polyfunctional CD4+ T cell responses, with polyfunctional IL-21+ peripheral T follicular helper cells increased in mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2. IL-21+ cells correlated with antibody titers. Heterologous boosting with Ad26.COV2.S did not increase CD8+ responses compared to homologous boosting.ConclusionBoosting with the ancestral strain can induce cross-reactive T cell responses against emerging variants in SOTRs, but alternative vaccine strategies are required to induce robust CD8+ T cell responses.FundingBen-Dov Family; NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) K24AI144954, NIAID K08AI156021, NIAID K23AI157893, NIAID U01AI138897, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases T32DK007713, and National Cancer Institute 1U54CA260492; Johns Hopkins Vice Dean of Research Support for COVID-19 Research in Immunopathogenesis; and Emory COVID-19 research repository.

Risk factors for incomplete telehealth appointments among patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the urgent implementation of telehealth visits in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care; however, data assessing feasibility remain limited. Objectives: We looked to determine the completion rate of telehealth appointments for adults with IBD, as well as to evaluate demographic, clinical, and social predictors of incomplete appointments. Design: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with IBD who had at least one scheduled telehealth visit at the NYU IBD Center between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2021, with only the first scheduled telehealth appointment considered. Methods: Medical records were parsed for relevant covariables, and multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between demographic factors and an incomplete telehealth appointment. Results: From 1 March 2020 to 31 August 2021, there were 2508 patients with IBD who had at least one telehealth appointment, with 1088 (43%) having Crohn's disease (CD), 1037 (41%) having ulcerative colitis (UC), and 383 (15%) having indeterminate colitis. Of the initial telehealth visits, 519 (21%) were not completed, including 435 (20%) among patients <60 years as compared to 84 (23%) among patients ⩾60 years (p = 0.22). After adjustment, patients with CD had higher odds of an incomplete appointment as compared to patients with UC [adjusted odds ratio (adjOR): 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.69], as did females (adjOR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.04-1.54), and patients who had a non-first-degree relative listed as an emergency contact (adjOR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.16-2.44). While age ⩾60 years was not associated with appointment completion status, we did find that age >80 years was an independent predictor of missed telehealth appointments (adjOR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.12-7.63) when compared to individuals aged 60-70 years. Conclusion: Patients with CD, females, and those with less social support were at higher risk for missed telehealth appointments, as were adults >80 years. Engaging older adults via telehealth, particularly those aged 60-80 years, may therefore provide an additional venue to complement in-person care.

Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A Noninvasive Screening Model for Additional Diagnostics.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is likely underdiagnosed, and current diagnostic tools are either invasive or insensitive. Methods: A retrospective study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted to 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals between March 2020 and June 2021 was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used for the CAPA prediction model building. Performance of the model was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: In the cohort of 832 patients, 98 (11.8%) met criteria for CAPA. Age, time since intubation, dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment, underlying pulmonary circulatory diseases, human immunodeficiency virus, multiple myeloma, cancer, or hematologic malignancies were statistically significantly associated with CAPA and were included in the CAPA prediction model, which showed an AUC of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, .70-.80). At a screening cutoff of ≥0.085, it had a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 51%, a positive predictive value of 18.6%, and a negative predictive value of 95.3%. (The CAPA screening score calculator is available at www.transplantmodels.com). Conclusions: We developed a CAPA risk score as a noninvasive tool to aid in CAPA screening for patients with severe COVID-19. Our score will also identify a group of patients who are unlikely to have CAPA and who therefore need not undergo additional diagnostics and/or empiric antifungal therapy.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2-specific immune defects in kidney transplant recipients following third mRNA vaccine dose.

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-RBDNEG; n = 42 anti-RBDLO), 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-RBDNEG 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 (rs = 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).

Impact of Seasonal Coronavirus Antibodies on SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Responses in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are reduced in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). We report that increased levels of pre-existing antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses are associated with decreased antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in SOTRs, supporting that antigenic imprinting modulates vaccine responses in this immunosuppressed population.

PASC in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Self-reported SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

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.

Neutralizing activity and 3-month durability of tixagevimab and cilgavimab prophylaxis against Omicron sublineages in transplant recipients.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes after Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab pre-exposure prophylaxis among solid organ transplant recipients: Safety, effectiveness, and perceptions of risk.

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.

Transplantation Amid a Pandemic: The Fall and Rise of Kidney Transplantation in the United States.

Following the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States, the number of kidney waitlist additions and living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplants (LDKT/DDKT) decreased substantially but began recovering within a few months. Since then, there have been several additional waves of infection, most notably, the Delta and Omicron surges beginning in August and December 2021, respectively. Methods: Using SRTR data, we compared observed waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, waitlist removal due to deteriorating condition, LDKT, and DDKT over 5 distinct pandemic periods to expected events based on calculations from preepidemic data while accounting for seasonality and secular trends. Results: Although the number of daily waitlist additions has been increasing since May 2020, the size of the active waitlist has consistently declined, reaching a minimum of 52 556 on February 27, 2022. The recent Omicron surge knocked LDKT from 25% below baseline (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.690.750.81) during the Delta wave to 38% below baseline (IRR = 0.580.620.67). DDKT, however, was less affected by the Omicron wave (IRR = 0.850.890.93 and 0.880.920.96 during the Delta and Omicron waves, respectively). Waitlist death decreased from 56% above baseline (IRR = 1.431.561.70) during Delta to 41% above baseline during Omicron, whereas waitlist removal due to deteriorating condition remained at baseline/expected levels during the Delta wave (IRR = 0.931.021.12) and the Omicron wave (IRR = 0.991.071.16). Conclusions: Despite exceptionally high COVID-19 incidence during the Omicron wave, the transplant system responded similarly to prior waves that imposed a lesser disease burden, demonstrating the transplant system's growing adaptations and resilience to this now endemic disease.

Outcomes of SOT Recipients With COVID-19 in Different Eras of COVID-19 Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Few reports have focused on newer coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies (remdesivir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma) in solid organ transplant recipients; concerns had been raised regarding possible adverse impact on allograft function or secondary infections. METHODS: We studied 77 solid organ transplant inpatients with COVID-19 during 2 therapeutic eras (Era 1: March-May 2020, 21 patients; and Era 2: June-November 2020, 56 patients) and 52 solid organ transplant outpatients. RESULTS: In Era 1, no patients received remdesivir or dexamethasone, and 4 of 21 (19.4%) received convalescent plasma, whereas in Era 2, remdesivir (24/56, 42.9%), dexamethasone (24/56, 42.9%), and convalescent plasma (40/56, 71.4%) were commonly used. Mortality was low across both eras, 4 of 77 (5.6%), and rejection occurred in only 2 of 77 (2.8%) inpatients; infections were similar in hypoxemic patients with or without dexamethasone. Preexisting graft dysfunction was associated with greater need for hospitalization, higher severity score, and lower survival. Acute kidney injury was present in 37.3% of inpatients; renal function improved more rapidly in patients who received remdesivir and convalescent plasma. Post-COVID-19 renal and liver function were comparable between eras, out to 90 d. CONCLUSIONS: Newer COVID-19 therapies did not appear to have a deleterious effect on allograft function, and infectious complications were comparable.

mTOR inhibitors, mycophenolates, and other immunosuppression regimens on antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in solid organ transplant recipients.

A recent study concluded that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine responses were improved among transplant patients taking mTOR inhibitors (mTORi). This could have profound implications for vaccine strategies in transplant patients; however, limitations in the study design raise concerns about the conclusions. To address this issue more robustly, in a large cohort with appropriate adjustment for confounders, we conducted various regression- and machine learning-based analyses to compare antibody responses by immunosuppressive agents in a national cohort (n = 1037). MMF was associated with significantly lower odds of positive antibody response (aOR = 0.09 0.130.18 ). Consistent with the recent mTORi study, the odds tended to be higher with mTORi (aOR = 1.00 1.452.13 ); however, importantly, this seemingly protective tendency disappeared (aOR = 0.47 0.731.12 ) after adjusting for MMF. We repeated this comparison by combinations of immunosuppression agents. Compared to MMF + tacrolimus, MMF-free regimens were associated with higher odds of positive antibody response (aOR = 2.39 4.267.92 for mTORi+tacrolimus; 2.34 5.5415.32 for mTORi-only; and 6.78 10.2515.93 for tacrolimus-only), whereas MMF-including regimens were not, regardless of mTORi use (aOR = 0.81 1.542.98 for MMF + mTORi; and 0.81 1.512.87 for MMF-only). We repeated these analyses in an independent cohort (n = 512) and found similar results. Our study demonstrates that the recently reported findings were confounded by MMF, and that mTORi is not independently associated with improved vaccine responses.

Predicting a Positive Antibody Response After 2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines in Transplant Recipients: A Machine Learning Approach With External Validation.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are less likely to mount an antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Understanding risk factors for impaired vaccine response can guide strategies for antibody testing and additional vaccine dose recommendations. METHODS: Using a nationwide observational cohort of 1031 SOTRs, we created a machine learning model to explore, identify, rank, and quantify the association of 19 clinical factors with antibody responses to 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. External validation of the model was performed using a cohort of 512 SOTRs at Houston Methodist Hospital. RESULTS: Mycophenolate mofetil use, a shorter time since transplant, and older age were the strongest predictors of a negative antibody response, collectively contributing to 76% of the model's prediction performance. Other clinical factors, including transplanted organ, vaccine type (mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2), sex, race, and other immunosuppressants, showed comparatively weaker associations with an antibody response. This model showed moderate prediction performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 in our cohort and 0.67 in the external validation cohort. An online calculator based on our prediction model is available at http://transplantmodels.com/covidvaccine/ . CONCLUSIONS: Our machine learning model helps understand which transplant patients need closer follow-up and additional doses of vaccine to achieve protective immunity. The online calculator based on this model can be incorporated into transplant providers' practice to facilitate patient-centric, precision risk stratification and inform vaccination strategies among SOTRs.