A single-center review of outcomes between COVID-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: With the availability of vaccines against SARS-COV-2, recommendations for vaccination of transplant candidates are widespread. At our institution, patients may receive liver transplant (LTx) regardless of vaccine status. The purpose of this study is to compare post-LTx outcomes between vaccinated (VAX) and unvaccinated (UNVAX) LTx recipients. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center study of LTx from January 1, 2021-March 30, 2022. The primary outcome is incidence of post-LTx COVID-19. Secondary outcomes include graft function, mortality, graft loss, and COVID-19 treatment. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-seven LTx recipients were included, 57% [101/177] VAX and 43% [76/177] UNVAX. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, 28 (36.8%) UNVAX and 34 (33.7%) VAX tested COVID-19 positive during the study period (p = .193) at a mean of 312.6 [255.4-369.8] days for UNVAX versus 254.6 [215.2-293.9] days for VAX (p = .084). COVID-19 treatment was administered in 15 (53.6%) of the UNVAX compared to 22 (64.7%) in the VAX (p = .374), although eight (28.6%) of UNVAX required hospital admission for treatment compared with two (5.9%) of VAX (p = .016). There were no statistically significant differences in death, and no COVID-19 related death or graft loss. There were no statistically significant differences in liver function tests at 3- and 12-months post LTx. CONCLUSION: In a series with a large percentage of UNVAX patients, LTx appears to be safe, with no difference in the rate of COVID-19 or transplant-related outcomes compared to VAX. While we encourage vaccination to prevent severe COVID, based on our results, vaccine status should not be reason to deny lifesaving transplant.

Comparison of outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated COVID-19 kidney transplant recipients, a single center retrospective study-Is the taboo justified?

INTRODUCTION: We assessed differences in the post-transplant outcomes between COVID-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated Kidney transplant (KTx) recipients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 400 KTx from 2/1/2021 to 4/30/2022 with 6-21 months follow-up. Primary outcomes included differences in the incidence of post-transplant COVID-19, ICU admission for COVID-19, death, and graft failure between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were inpatient floor admission, outpatient-management, length of hospital stay during COVID-19 admission. We also reported rejection, DGF, CMV needing treatment, and BK PCR >10 000 in baseline characteristics. RESULT: 70.5% (282/400) were fully vaccinated, and 29.5% (118/400) were unvaccinated. 33% (92/282) of vaccinated and 39% (46/118) of unvaccinated patients developed COVID-19 (p-value .03). In both groups, 16% received outpatient treatments for COVID-19. 3% (12/282) of the vaccinated and 8% (11/118) unvaccinated were admitted to the general floors (p-value .06), and 1% (3/282) of the vaccinated and 3.3% (4/118) of the unvaccinated patients needed admission to the ICU (p-value .2). The length of stay was 12 days in both groups. 13/282 (4.6%) vaccinated patients and 7/118 (5.93%) unvaccinated patients died during the follow-up period (p-value = .3). COVID-19 was deemed the etiology of death in 5/13 cases in the vaccinated and 3/7 in the unvaccinated. DGF, rejection, CMV requiring treatment, and BK PCR >10 000 were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: The incidence of COVID-19 was higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated KTx. The two groups were not statistically different for other primary outcomes, including the need for hospital admissions (outpatient, general floor, ICU), length of hospital stay, death, and graft failure.

A Single-Center Case Series of Successful Abdominal Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2-infected Donors to Uninfected Recipients-Do We Need Rigorous Monitoring?

There is limited documentation of hematogenous transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in non-lung transplants from infected donors to uninfected recipients. Methods: We analyzed 16 recipients (7 liver, 9 kidney) transplanted from SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test+ deceased donors from December 25, 2021, to February 28, 2022, who were followed-up for at least 90 d. Primary outcomes included coronavirus disease 2019-positivity, allograft loss, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included biopsy-proven rejection (BPAR), donor-specific antibodies, delayed graft function, and opportunistic infections. Unlike previous studies, we followed the recipients clinically with the intent to treat if they developed SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. Results: All donors were SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction-positive 72 h before donation. No recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The nadir serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate were 1.33 mg/dL and 64 mL/min/1.732 m2 for kidney transplantation (KTx) respectively. The median alanine transaminase was 14.5 IU/L, aspartate aminotransferase 13 IU/L, and alkaline phosphatase 74 IU/L. Two KTx patients lost allograft, and 1 liver transplantation patient died with a failed allograft. However, this was unrelated to their SARS-CoV-2-positive donor status. One BPAR in the liver transplantation was treated with steroids. No donor-specific antibodies or BPAR were reported in the KTx. Six KTx patients experienced delayed graft function, and 4 are off dialysis. Two KTx patients developed cytomegalovirus infection because of an error in reporting the cytomegalovirus serostatus by the donor center. We did not do serial testing for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction, imaging, or cycle threshold score pre- or posttransplant for donor/recipient and had comparable outcomes with previous studies. Conclusions: Because of the low risk of transmission, serial testing might not be necessary and, thus, could be reciprocated at small-volume transplant centers.

Kidney transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients and risk for de novo donor specific antibodies and acute rejection.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation from HCV-viremic donors into uninfected recipients is associated with excellent short-term outcomes. However, concerns regarding an increased risk for the development of de novo donor specific antibodies (DSA) and acute rejection have been raised in single center reports. METHODS: A retrospective study of HCV-negative kidney-only transplant recipients between 2018 and 2020. Patients were grouped based on the donor HCV status into group 1; HCV-viremic donors, and group 2; HCV-negative donors. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), with weights derived from the propensity score, were used to estimate the effect of donors' HCV-viremia on the recipients. The primary objective was to compare the 1-year incidence of de novo DSA. Secondary outcomes included group comparison of the incidence of biopsy proven acute rejection (BPAR), 1-year patient and allograft survival, and 1-year renal allograft function. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were included in the HCV NAT+ group, and 440 in the HCV- negative group. One-year incidence of de novo DSA was higher in the HCV NAT+ group in the IPTW weighted analysis (19% vs. 9%, p = .02). In the unweighted analysis, BPAR occurred in 7% of recipients in the HCV NAT+ group, compared to 3% in the control group (p = .06). However, due to the low event rate in the in the IPTW weighted groups, a statistical significance test could not be performed. Average estimated GFR was higher in the HCV-viremic group at 3 months (61 vs. 53 ml/min/1.73 m2 p = .002), but comparable at 6 (59 vs. 56 ml/min/1.73 m2 , p = .31) and 12 months (60 vs. 55 ml/min/1.73 m2 , p = .07). Patient and allograft survival were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant from HCV-viremic donors was associated with an increased risk for the development of post-transplant de novo DSA in the first year after transplantation, but no difference in patient and graft survival.

Kidney transplant from hepatitis C viremic donors into aviremic recipients and risk for post-transplant BK and cytomegalovirus infection.

BACKGROUND: kidney transplantation from Hepatitis C virus (HCV) viremic donors to uninfected recipients is associated with excellent short-term outcomes. However, HCV viremia might be associated with an increased risk for post-transplant viral complications. METHODS: We designed a retrospective study of HCV-negative kidney-only transplant recipients between 2018 and 2020. Recipients were grouped into group 1; HCV-negative donors, and group 2; HCV-viremic donors. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score. The primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia ≥ 200 ml/IU, and BK viremia ≥1000 copies/ml between the groups. Secondary outcomes included group comparison of CMV disease, BK viremia ≥10 000 copies/ml, and 1-year patient and allograft survival. RESULTS: The study included 634 patients in group 1, and 71 patients in group 2. Sixty-five pairs of patients were matched. Incidence of CMV viremia (33.3% vs. 40.0%, p = .4675), and BK viremia (15.9% vs. 27.7%, p = .1353) did not differ significantly between groups in the matched cohort. Incidence of CMV disease (81.0% vs. 76.9%, p = 1.000), and BK viremia ≥10 000 copies/ml (9.5% vs. 16.9%, p = .2987) were comparable between groups. There was no difference in the 1-year patient or allograft survival between groups. CONCLUSION: kidney transplant from HCV-viremic donors is not associated with increased risk for BK or CMV viremia.

Modification in induction immunosuppression regimens to safely perform kidney transplants amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted organ donation and transplantation across the globe. METHODS: This study analyzed transplant outcomes during the pre-pandemic [PPE, 1/2019-2/2020] and pandemic era [PE, 3/2020-8/2020] based on changes in induction immunosuppression. During PPE, high immunological risk patients received 4-6 mg/kg, moderate risk 2-4 mg/kg, and low risk 1-2 mg/kg of ATG. During PE, ATG doses were reduced to 3-4 mg/kg for high risk, 1-2 mg/kg for moderate, and low changed to basiliximab. Primary outcomes are as follows: biopsy-proven rejection [BPAR], de-novo donor-specific antibody [DSA], delayed graft function [DGF], infection rates, graft loss, and all-cause of mortality. RESULTS: During PPE, 224 kidney transplants [KTx] and 14 kidney/pancreas transplants [KP] were included, while 180 KTx and 5 KP were included for PE. Basiliximab use increased by 30% in the PE. The odds of DGF were statistically significant between PE vs PPE, OR 1.7 [1.05, 2.8, p-value = .042]. The odds of developing DSAs and BPAR during the PE vs. PPE were 0.34 [0.16, 0.71, p-value = .004] and OR 0.34 (0.1 to 1.1, p-value, .104)], respectively. Cytomegalovirus [19% in PE, 37% in PPE] and BK virus [5.4% PE vs. 16% PPE] incidence reduced during PE vs. PPE. COVID-19, graft loss, and mortality were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: KTx and KP transplants were performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of induction immunosuppression.

Antithymocyte induction dosing and incidence of opportunistic viral infections using steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited literature evaluating rATG induction dosing and incidence of opportunistic viral infections when using steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective, study compared high rATG (>4.5 mg/kg) versus low (<4.5 mg/kg) induction dosing and the overall incidence of early opportunistic viral infection at 180 days in the setting of maintenance immunosuppression consisting of tacrolimus, mycophenolate, rapid steroid withdrawal, and a tiered antiviral prevention strategy based on donor-recipient Cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were included; 76 patients received low-dose and 133 patients received high-dose rATG. Incidence of overall opportunistic viral infection occurred more frequently in patients who received high compared to low dose (29.8% vs 25% p = .030). Incidence of CMV infection was also significantly increased in the high-dose group (31.6% vs 18.4% p = .039). In a multivariable model, rATG dose, as a continuous variable, remained a significant independent predictor of infection along with CMV risk (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.09) controlling for age and CMV risk. There were no differences in graft-related outcomes at 180 days. CONCLUSION: Higher cumulative rATG induction dose was associated with increased incidence of opportunistic viral infections, in the setting of a steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression in the early post-transplant period.