Potassium-lowering effects of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate in the early post-transplant period.

PROBLEM: Hyperkalemia is a serious condition among intra-abdominal transplant recipients, and the safety and efficacy of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) for its management during the early post-transplant period are not well-established. METHODS: Adults who received at least one 10-g dose of SZC within 14 days after an intra-abdominal transplant between January 2020 and July 2022 were included in our study. The primary outcome was the change in potassium (K+) levels following the first SZC dose. Other analyses explored adjunctive potassium-lowering therapies, potential gastrointestinal complications, and patient subgroups based on therapy and transplant type. RESULTS: Among the recipients (n = 46), 11 were kidney recipients, 26 were liver recipients, seven were simultaneous liver/kidney recipients, and two were simultaneous pancreas/kidney recipients. The mean time to first dose post-transplant was 7.6 (±4) days, and the mean change in serum K+ after the initial SZC dose was -.27 mEq (p = .001). No gastrointestinal complications were observed following the SZC dose. The mean increase in serum bicarbonate was .58 mEq (p = .41) following the first dose of SZC. Four kidney recipients required dialysis following the SZC dose. CONCLUSION: This study represents the largest investigation on the use of SZC in transplant recipients. A single 10-g dose of SZC reduced serum K+ levels in all subgroups, while the use of adjunctive K+-lowering therapies did not provide additional reduction beyond the effects of SZC. Importantly, no gastrointestinal complications were observed. These findings suggest that SZC may be a safe and promising therapeutic option for hyperkalemia management following solid organ transplantation.

A systematic review of direct acting antiviral therapies in hepatitis C virus-negative liver transplant recipients of hepatitis C-viremic donors.

The introduction of safe and highly effective direct acting antivirals (DAAs) has significantly improved hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment outcomes after transplant. The solid organ transplant community has sought to identify strategies aimed at increasing the donor pool including the utilization of HCV-viremic organs in HCV-negative recipients. We will review the existing literature to evaluate DAA use for the treatment of HCV viremia post-liver transplant in patients who receive HCV-viremic allografts. A PubMed search was conducted and references for each study were also reviewed to identify additional articles. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included if: published in English language, evaluated DAA treatment outcomes after liver only or simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation with HCV-viremic allografts in HCV-negative recipients, and had full-text article availability. Our review included 16 studies and 2 case reports. The majority of liver transplant recipients were treated with a pangenotypic DAA for 12 weeks with a heterogeneous median time to initiation (range 1.7-118 days). Sustained virologic response was assessed in 253 liver transplant patients with 99.6% achieving cure with minimal DAA-attributed adverse drug events. There were 23 reported episodes of rejection, 12 deaths, and 1 graft loss among all studies. Treatment with DAA after transplantation of HCV-viremic livers into HCV-negative recipients appears to be safe and effective; however, long-term outcomes remain unknown. Transplant pharmacists play a key role in the development of center-specific protocols to optimize post-transplant outcomes in this unique patient population.

The use of non-transplant biologics in solid organ transplant recipients: A practical review for the frontline clinician.

Biologics have become the forefront of medicine for management of autoimmune conditions, leading to improved quality of life. Many autoimmune conditions occur in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and persist following transplant. However, the use of biologics in this patient population is not well studied, and questions arise related to risk of infection and adjustments to induction and maintenance immunosuppression. Guidelines have been published highlighting management strategies of biologics around the time of elective surgical procedures, but this is not always feasible in urgent situations, especially with deceased donor transplantation. The aim of this review is to summarize the current literature regarding the use of these agents in solid organ transplant recipients, and specifically address induction and maintenance immunosuppression, as well as the need for alternative infective prevention strategies to create a practical reference for the frontline clinician, when faced with this complex clinical scenario.

The role of the pharmacist in the management of kidney transplant recipients.

Pharmacists may play a key role on the multidisciplinary transplant team. This article describes the development and current status of pharmacists in the management of transplant recipients in the United States. Traditionally, pharmacists played an important support role in transplant medicine. This role has been expanded to include direct patient care for the avoidance, detection, and/or treatment of side effects from the polypharmacy necessary in the management of these complex patients. Pharmacists provide pre- and post-transplant education to transplant recipients to enhance adherence to complicated medical regimens and thereby reduce readmission to hospital and unscheduled, costly visits to urgent care centers and/or hospital emergency departments.

Sofosbuvir plus ledispasvir for recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplant recipients.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) is associated with worse outcomes. The combination of ledipasvir (LDV) and sofosbuvir (SOF) has been approved for HCV treatment after LT, but there are limited data on the effectiveness and safety of LDV/SOF in the "real-world" setting. This multicenter study is the largest report to date on the effectiveness and safety of LDV/SOF in the post-LT setting. A total of 204 patients (72% male, 68% Caucasian, 66% genotype [GT] 1a, 21% METAVIR F3-F4, 49% treatment-experienced) were treated with LDV/SOF. The mean duration from LT to treatment initiation was 4.8 years. The overall sustained virological response rate 12 weeks after completion of therapy (SVR12) was 96%. Patients treated with 8 or 12 weeks of LDV/SOF without RBV experienced an SVR12 rate of 100% and 96%, respectively. Calcineurin inhibitors were used in 89% of patients, and 32% of patients underwent adjustment in immunosuppression during treatment. One episode of mild rejection, responsive to an increase in immunosuppression dosage, was observed. There was no graft loss attributed to HCV treatment. Four deaths occurred unrelated to HCV treatment, and no significant serious adverse events were documented. In conclusion, SOF and LDV with or without RBV for 8, 12, or 24 weeks in post-LT patients was effective and safe with a high SVR12 rate across a spectrum of GTs and stages of fibrosis. Liver Transplantation 22 1536-1543 2016 AASLD.

Does applying technology throughout the medication use process improve patient safety with antineoplastics?

PURPOSE: Medical errors, in particular medication errors, continue to be a troublesome factor in the delivery of safe and effective patient care. Antineoplastic agents represent a group of medications highly susceptible to medication errors due to their complex regimens and narrow therapeutic indices. As the majority of these medication errors are frequently associated with breakdowns in poorly defined systems, developing technologies and evolving workflows seem to be a logical approach to provide added safeguards against medication errors. SUMMARY: This article will review both the pros and cons of today's technologies and their ability to simplify the medication use process, reduce medication errors, improve documentation, improve healthcare costs and increase provider efficiency as relates to the use of antineoplastic therapy throughout the medication use process. Several technologies, mainly computerized provider order entry (CPOE), barcode medication administration (BCMA), smart pumps, electronic medication administration record (eMAR), and telepharmacy, have been well described and proven to reduce medication errors, improve adherence to quality metrics, and/or improve healthcare costs in a broad scope of patients. The utilization of these technologies during antineoplastic therapy is weak at best and lacking for most. Specific to the antineoplastic medication use system, the only technology with data to adequately support a claim of reduced medication errors is CPOE. In addition to the benefits these technologies can provide, it is also important to recognize their potential to induce new types of errors and inefficiencies which can negatively impact patient care. CONCLUSION: The utilization of technology reduces but does not eliminate the potential for error. The evidence base to support technology in preventing medication errors is limited in general but even more deficient in the realm of antineoplastic therapy. Though CPOE has the best evidence to support its use in the antineoplastic population, benefit from many other technologies may have to be inferred based on data from other patient populations. As health systems begin to widely adopt and implement new technologies it is important to critically assess their effectiveness in improving patient safety.