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 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.

Human Metapneumovirus and Parainfluenza Virus Infections in Lung Transplant Recipients: The Effects on Lung Allograft and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Human metapneumovirus (HMPVi) and parainfluenza virus (PIVi) infections are common community-acquired infections in lung transplant recipients (LTRs), but data are extremely limited. METHODS: A retrospective study including all LTRs at the Johns Hopkins Hospital during July 2010-June 2019 with positive HMPV and PIV polymerase chain reaction respiratory specimens was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one HMPV- and 53 PIV-infected LTRs were identified. LTRs with HMPVi and PIVi had similar baseline characteristics, infection parameters, treatment allocation, and allograft function outcomes. Among entire cohort, 31.6% had chronic allograft dysfunction (CLAD) stage progression within 1 y postinfections (29.2% versus 35.5% for PIVi versus HMPVi, respectively, P = 0.56). In forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent (FEV1%) trajectory analysis showed steadily decline of FEV1 across time among CLAD stage progressors from both viruses. FEV1% decline ≥10% at 90 d had adjusted hazard ratio for CLAD stage progression of 18.4 (4.98-67.76) and 4.6 (1.36-15.34) for PIVi and HMPVi, respectively. PIVi caused higher donor-specific antigen development (11.8% versus 3.2%, P = 0.18) and 1-y mortality (9.4% versus 0%, P = 0.11), compared with HMPVi, even though the results were not statistically significant. Ribavirin did not show protective effect, and mycophenolate discontinuation during infection did not increase risk of CLAD stage progression. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of HMPV- and PIV-infected LTRs developed CLAD stage progression within 1 y. The lack of early lung function recovery may predict long-term CLAD progression.

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.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Solid Organ Transplant: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant reductions in transplantation, motivated in part by concerns of disproportionately more severe disease among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, clinical features, outcomes, and predictors of mortality in SOT recipients are not well described. METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of SOT recipients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected using standardized intake and 28-day follow-up electronic case report forms. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for the primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, among hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-two SOT recipients from >50 transplant centers were included: 318 (66%) kidney or kidney/pancreas, 73 (15.1%) liver, 57 (11.8%) heart, and 30 (6.2%) lung. Median age was 58 (interquartile range [IQR] 46-57), median time post-transplant was 5 years (IQR 2-10), 61% were male, and 92% had ≥1 underlying comorbidity. Among those hospitalized (376 [78%]), 117 (31%) required mechanical ventilation, and 77 (20.5%) died by 28 days after diagnosis. Specific underlying comorbidities (age >65 [adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-5.5, P < .001], congestive heart failure [aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.0, P = .004], chronic lung disease [aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.2, P = .018], obesity [aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.4, P = .039]) and presenting findings (lymphopenia [aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.5, P = .033], abnormal chest imaging [aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.5, P = .027]) were independently associated with mortality. Multiple measures of immunosuppression intensity were not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality among SOT recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 20.5%. Age and underlying comorbidities rather than immunosuppression intensity-related measures were major drivers of mortality.

Pitfalls and Unexpected Benefits of an Electronic Hand Hygiene Monitoring System.

BACKGROUND: No single strategy is more effective than proper hand hygiene (HH) in reducing the spread of nosocomial infections. Unfortunately, health care worker compliance with HH is imperfect. We sought to improve HH compliance using an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system (EHHMS) in 2 units to collect unbiased data and provide feedback. METHODS: In this prospective, quasi-experimental study, the Hyginex EHHMS was installed in 2 units at Tufts Medical Center. Ninety-one bracelets were assigned, and electronic data were collected over 8 months. Human observations continued. We compared HH compliance as measured by human observation before, during, and after EHHMS implementation. Pre- and post-implementation surveys were distributed to staff. RESULTS: The number of electronically captured HH compliance observations was small due to infrequent bracelet use after month 2 of the intervention. HH compliance, as determined by human observation, increased by an average of 1.3 percentage points per month (P = .0005). Survey responses revealed negative attitudes about the EHHMS before and after its implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite poor EHHMS participation and negative attitudes toward its implementation, HH compliance, as measured by human observation, significantly improved. Hospitals considering implementing an EHHMS should look to refine the intervention to encourage health care worker participation.

The Hypertension of Hemophilia Is Not Explained by the Usual Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Results of a Cohort Study.

Background. The etiology of the high prevalence of hypertension among patients with hemophilia (PWH) remains unknown. Methods. We compared 469 PWH in the United States with males from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to determine whether differences in cardiovascular risk factors can account for the hypertension in hemophilia. Results. Median systolic and diastolic BP were higher in PWH than NHANES (P < 0.001) for subjects not taking antihypertensives. Those taking antihypertensives showed similar differences. Differences in both systolic and diastolic BP were especially marked among adults <30 years old. Differences between PWH and NHANES persisted after adjusting for age and risk factors (body mass index, renal function, cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, Hepatitis C, and race). Conclusions. Systolic and diastolic BP are higher in PWH than in the general male population and especially among PWH < 30 years old. The usual cardiovascular risk factors do not account for the etiology of the higher prevalence of hypertension in hemophilia. New investigations into the missing link between hemophilia and hypertension should include age of onset of hypertension and hemophilia-specific morbidities such as the role of inflammatory joint disease.