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.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on transplantation by income level and cumulative COVID-19 incidence: a multinational survey study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the provisions of health services to necessary but deprioritised fields, such as transplantation. Many programmes had to ramp-down their activity, which may significantly affect transplant volumes. We aimed to pragmatically analyse measures of transplant activity and compare them by a country's income level and cumulative COVID-19 incidence (CCI). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: From June to September 2020, we surveyed transplant physicians identified as key informants in their programmes. Of the 1267 eligible physicians, 40.5% from 71 countries participated. OUTCOME: Four pragmatic measures of transplant activity. RESULTS: Overall, 46.5% of the programmes from high-income countries anticipate being able to maintain >75% of their transplant volume compared with 31.6% of the programmes from upper-middle-income countries, and with 21.7% from low/lower-middle-income countries (p<0.001). This could be because more programmes in high-income countries reported being able to perform transplantation/s (86.8%%-58.5%-67.9%, p<0.001), maintain prepandemic deceased donor offers (31.0%%-14.2%-26.4%, p<0.01) and avoid a ramp down phase (30.9%%-19.7%-8.3%, p<0.001), respectively. In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for CCI, programmes in upper-middle-income countries (adjusted OR, aOR=0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81) and low/lower-middle-income countries (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67) had lower odds of being able to maintain >75% of their transplant volume, compared with programmes in high-income countries. Again, this could be attributed to lower-income being associated with 3.3-3.9 higher odds of performing no transplantation/s, 66%-68% lower odds of maintaining prepandemic donor offers and 37%-76% lower odds of avoiding ramp-down of transplantation. Overall, CCI was not associated with these measures. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the pandemic on transplantation was more in lower-income countries, independent of the COVID-19 burden. Given the lag of 1-2 years in objective data being reported by global registries, our findings may inform practice and policy. Transplant programmes in lower-income countries may need more effort to rebuild disrupted services and recuperate from the pandemic even if their COVID-19 burden was low.

Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) occurs in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Risks and outcomes remain poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals was conducted between March and August 2020. CAPA was defined using composite clinical criteria. Fine and Gray competing risks regression was used to analyze clinical outcomes and, multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression was used to compare longitudinal disease severity scores. RESULTS: In the cohort of 396 people, 39 met criteria for CAPA. Patients with CAPA were more likely than those without CAPA to have underlying pulmonary vascular disease (41% vs 21.6%, respectively; P = .01), liver disease (35.9% vs 18.2%; P = .02), coagulopathy (51.3% vs 33.1%; P = .03), solid tumors (25.6% vs 10.9%; P = .02), multiple myeloma (5.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03), and corticosteroid exposure during the index admission (66.7% vs 42.6%; P = .005), and had lower body mass indexes (median, 26.6 vs 29.9 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]; P = .04). Patients with CAPA had worse outcomes, as measured by ordinal severity of disease scores, requiring longer time to improvement (adjusted odds ratio, 1.081.091.1; P < .001), and advancing in severity almost twice as quickly (subhazard ratio, 1.31.82.5; P < .001). They were intubated twice as long as those without CAPA (subhazard ratio, 0.40.50.6; P < .001) and had longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range], 41.1 [20.5-72.4) vs 18.5 [10.7-31.8] days; P < .001). CONCLUSION: CAPA is associated with poor outcomes. Attention to preventive measures (screening and/or prophylaxis) is warranted in people with high risk of CAPA.

Impact of COVID-19 on Lung Allograft and Clinical Outcomes in Lung Transplant Recipients: A Case-control Study.

BACKGROUND: The impacts of COVID-19 on lung allograft function, rejection, secondary infection, and clinical outcomes in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) remain unknown. METHODS: A 1:2 matched case-control study was performed to evaluate rehospitalization, lung allograft function, and secondary infections up to 90 d after COVID-19 diagnosis (or index dates for controls). RESULTS: Twenty-four LTRs with COVID-19 (cases) and 48 controls were identified. Cases and controls had similar baseline characteristics and lung allograft function. LTRs with COVID-19 had higher incidence of secondary bacterial infection (29.2% versus 6.3%, P = 0.008), readmission (29.2% versus 10.4%, P = 0.04), and for-cause bronchoscopy (33.3% versus 12.5%, P = 0.04) compared with controls. At d 90, mortality in cases versus controls was 8.3% versus 2.1% (P = 0.21), incidence of invasive fungal infections in cases versus controls was 20.8% versus 8.3% (P = 0.13) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) decline ≥10% from baseline occurred in 19% of cases versus 12.2% of controls (P = 0.46). No acute cellular rejection, acute antibody-mediated rejection, or new donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies were observed among cases or controls within 90 d post index date. CONCLUSIONS: We found LTRs with COVID-19 were at risk to develop secondary infections and rehospitalization post COVID-19, compared with controls. While we did not observe post viral acute cellular rejection or antibody-mediated rejection, further studies are needed to understand if LTRs with COVID-19 who did not recover baseline lung function within 90 d have developed chronic lung allograft dysfunction stage progression.

Immunosuppression practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multinational survey study of transplant programs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been wide heterogeneity in the medical management of transplant recipients. We aimed to pragmatically capture immunosuppression practices globally following the early months of the pandemic. From June to September 2020, we surveyed 1267 physicians; 40.5% from 71 countries participated. Management decisions were made on a case-by-case basis by the majority (69.6%) of the programs. Overall, 76.8% performed ≥1 transplantation and many commented on avoiding high-risk transplantations. For induction, 26.5% were less likely to give T-cell depletion and 14.8% were more likely to give non-depleting agents. These practices varied by program-level factors more so than the COVID-19 burden. In patients with mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 symptoms 59.7%, 76.0%, and 79.5% decreased/stopped anti-metabolites, 23.2%, 45.4%, and 68.2% decreased/stopped calcineurin inhibitors, and 25.7%, 43.9%, and 57.7% decreased/stopped mTOR inhibitors, respectively. Also, 2.1%, 30.6%, and 46.0% increased steroids in patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 symptoms. For prevalent transplant recipients, some programs also reported decreasing/stopping steroids (1.8%), anti-metabolites (10.3%), calcineurin inhibitors (4.1%), and mTOR inhibitors (5.5%). Transplant programs changed immunosuppression practices but also avoided high-risk transplants and increased maintenance steroids. The long-term ramifications of these practices remain to be seen as programs face the aftermath of the pandemic.

Inpatient COVID-19 outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients compared to non-solid organ transplant patients: A retrospective cohort.

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 1.11.4 , p = .5), or mortality (sHR: 0.1 0.41.6 , 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 0.810.86 , 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.

Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric kidney transplant in the United States.

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: We saw an initial decrease in DDKT and LDKT by 47% and 82% compared with expected events and then a continual increase, with numbers reaching expected prepandemic levels by May 2020. In the early phase of the pandemic, waitlist inactivation and removals due to death or deteriorating condition rose above expected values by 152% and 189%, respectively. There was a statistically significant decrease in new waitlist additions (IRR 0.49 0.65 0.85) and LDKT (IRR 0.17 0.38 0.84) 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.

Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Transplant Center Practices and Policies in the United States.

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.