Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

Invasive aspergillosis in liver transplant recipients in the current era.

Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a rare but fatal disease among liver transplant recipients (LiTRs). We performed a multicenter 1:2 case-control study comparing LiTRs diagnosed with proven/probable IA and controls with no invasive fungal infection. We included 62 IA cases and 124 matched controls. Disseminated infection occurred only in 8 cases (13%). Twelve-week all-cause mortality of IA was 37%. In multivariate analyses, systemic antibiotic usage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.74; P = .03) and history of pneumonia (aOR, 48.7; P = .01) were identified as independent risk factors associated with the occurrence of IA. Moreover, reoperation (aOR, 5.99; P = .01), systemic antibiotic usage (aOR, 5.03; P = .04), and antimold prophylaxis (aOR, 11.9; P = .02) were identified as independent risk factors associated with the occurrence of early IA. Among IA cases, Aspergillus colonization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 86.9; P < .001), intensive care unit stay (aHR, 3.67; P = .02), disseminated IA (aHR, 8.98; P < .001), and dialysis (aHR, 2.93; P = .001) were identified as independent risk factors associated with 12-week all-cause mortality, while recent receipt of tacrolimus (aHR, 0.11; P = .001) was protective. Mortality among LiTRs with IA remains high in the current era. The identified risk factors and protective factors may be useful for establishing robust targeted antimold prophylactic and appropriate treatment strategies against IA.

Symptom Duration and Resolution With Early Outpatient Treatment of Convalescent Plasma for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS: We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS: Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04373460.

Transfusing Convalescent Plasma as Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Double-Blinded, Phase 2 Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: In total, 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs 25.2 days; P = .49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs 25.9 days; P = .35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, although appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04323800.

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications. DISCUSSION: Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

A Pilot Single-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing BNT162b2 vs. JNJ-78436735 Vaccine as the Third Dose After Two Doses of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Solid Organ Transplant (SOT) recipients are at significant higher risk for COVID-19 and due to immunosuppressive medication, the immunogenicity after vaccination is suboptimal. In the previous studies, booster method showed significant benefit in this population. In the current study, we compared using a mix-and-match method vs. same vaccine as a third dose in SOT recipients. This was a patient-blinded, single center, randomized controlled trial comparing BNT162b2 vs. JNJ-78436735 vaccine as the third dose after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. We included adult SOT recipients with functional graft who had received two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either BNT162b2 or JNJ-78436735 in one-to-one ratio. Primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 IgG positivity at 1 month after the third dose. Sixty SOT recipients, including 36 kidney, 12 liver, 2 lung, 3 heart, and 5 combined transplants, were enrolled, and 57 recipients were analyzed per protocol. There were no statistically significant differences between the two vaccine protocols for IgG positivity (83.3% vs. 85.2% for BNT162b2 and JNJ-78436735, respectively, p = 0.85, Odds Ratio 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval 0.23-4.00). Comparison of the geometric mean titer demonstrated a higher trend with BNT162b2 (p = 0.09). In this pilot randomized controlled trial comparing mix and match method vs. uniform vaccination in SOT recipients, both vaccines were safely used. Since this was a small sample sized study, there was no statistically significant difference in immunogenicity; though, the mix and match method showed relatively lower geometric mean titer, as compared to uniform vaccine. Further studies need to be conducted to determine duration of this immunogenicity. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05047640?term=20210641&draw=2&rank=1, identifier 20210641.

Difference between SARS-CoV-2, seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus infection in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been raging since the end of 2019 and has shown worse outcomes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The clinical differences as well as outcomes between respiratory viruses have not been well defined in this population. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult SOT recipients with nasopharyngeal swab or bronchoalveolar lavage PCR positive for either SARS-CoV-2, seasonal coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza virus from January 2017 to October 2020. The follow up period was 3 months. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 377 recipients including 157 SARS-CoV-2, 70 seasonal coronavirus, 50 RSV and 100 influenza infections were identified. The most common transplanted organ was kidney 224/377 (59.4%). Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was found in 210/377 (55.7%) and the risk factors identified with multivariable analysis were SARS-CoV-2 infection, steroid use, and older age. Co- and secondary infections were seen in 77/377 (20.4%) recipients with bacterial pathogens as dominant. Hospital admission was seen in 266/377 (67.7%) recipients without significant statistical difference among viruses, however, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality were higher with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the multivariable model, the risk factors for mortality were SARS-CoV-2 infection and older age. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher incidence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 infected recipients. Older age was found to be the risk factor for lower respiratory tract infection and mortality for SARS-CoV-2, coronaviruses, RSV and influenza virus groups.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes in CMV infection in intestinal transplant recipients: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common posttransplantation infections and has been associated with increased rejection and mortality. Data in intestinal transplants recipients are limited. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all intestinal transplants performed between January 1, 2009, and August 31, 2020. We included recipients of all ages who were at risk of CMV infection. To identify the risk factors, we conducted at first univariate and multivariate analysis. For the multivariate analysis, we developed a logistic regression model based on the result of univariate analysis. RESULTS: Ninety five patients with a median age of 32 (interquartile range [IQR] 4, 50) were included. CMV donor seropositive/recipient seronegative were 17 (17.9%). Overall, 22.1% of the recipients developed CMV infection at a median time of 155 (IQR 28-254) days from transplant, including 4 CMV syndrome and 6 CMV end-organ disease. Overall, 90.4%, (19/21) developed DNAemia while on prophylaxis. Median peak viral load and time to negativity was 16 000 (IQR 1034-43 892) IU/mL and 56 (IQR 49-109) days, respectively. (Val)ganciclovir and foscarnet were utilized in 17 (80.9%) and 1 (4.76%) recipients, respectively. Recurrences of CMV DNAemia and graft rejection were observed in three and six recipients, respectively. Younger age was identified as a risk factor (p = .032, odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.99) to develop CMV DNAemia. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of intestinal transplant recipients developed CMV infection while on prophylaxis. Better methods such as CMV cell mediated immunity guided prophylaxis should be used to prevent infections in this population.

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

Challenges and opportunities in stewardship among solid organ transplant recipients with Candida auris bloodstream infections.

BACKGROUND: Candida auris is an emerging nosocomial pathogen worldwide. However, there has been little published on the management of C. auris in solid organ transplant recipients. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate C. auris bloodstream infections in solid organ transplant recipients between January 2020 and December 2021. Patient-related and outcomes data were extracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients identified with C. auris bloodstream infections, five were in solid organ transplant recipients (1 heart, 3 liver, and 1 combined liver-kidney). The median time to fungemia from hospital admission was 43 days, and the median time to fungemia from transplant was 18 days. All patients received micafungin as initial treatment, at a median of 6 hours from pathogen detection. Four patients achieved blood clearance, two patients had persistent fungemia, and two patients developed secondary complications from hematogenous spread. One patient died, resulting in a mortality rate of 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for developing C. auris bloodstream infections. In order to prevent graft loss and mortality, best practices for the management of C.auris should include rapid screening, diagnosis, and treatment. While echinocandins are considered first-line, antifungal selection should be based on susceptibilities and site of infection. Data to support routine use of combination therapy are lacking, however there may be a role for refractory cases. Prevention efforts against C. auris infection are especially important given the lack of effective decolonization strategies. For transplant recipients, hospitals should seek opportunities to restore patients' gut microbiome by curtailing unnecessary hospital procedures and inappropriate antimicrobial use. Further research and national guidelines are needed to better direct stewardship in this field.

Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in solid-organ transplant recipients: Incidence density and convalescent immunity prior to reinfection.

BACKGROUND: Long-term protective immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains poorly characterized, particularly in solid organ transplant (SOT) patients. METHOD: We determined the incidence density of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of adult SOT recipients initially infected between March 1st, 2020 and March 30th, 2021 and included those with initial infection before or after transplantation. Incidence density was the total cases divided by total days after initial diagnosis with active graft. RESULTS: Of 210 infected recipients, five (2.4%) developed reinfection, including two who had received full mRNA vaccination, but none developed hypoxia. The incidence density for reinfection was 9.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-22.6) and for primary infection the density was 9.1 (95% CI 7.9-10.5) cases/100,000 patient days. Two recipients had immunity evaluated in the weeks prior to reinfection, by measuring immunoglobulin-G (IgG) antibody titer to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell reactivity following stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools. Both mounted virus specific CD4 T-cell responses prior to reinfection (1.19% and 0.28% of total CD4 T cells) and both had reactive IgG testing (1.30 and 4.99 signal/cut off ratio). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that SOT recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain at high risk for reinfection even after generating cellular and humoral immune responses.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients following COVID-19 vaccination: A multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) have diminished humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination and higher rates of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection than the general population. Little is known about COVID-19 disease severity in SOTR with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections. METHODS: Between 4/7/21 and 6/21/21, we requested case reports via the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) listserv of SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination in SOTR. Online data collection included patient demographics, dates of COVID-19 vaccine administration, and clinical data related to COVID-19. We performed a descriptive analysis of patient factors and evaluated variables contributing to critical disease or need for hospitalization. RESULTS: Sixty-six cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in SOTR were collected. COVID-19 occurred after the second vaccine dose in 52 (78.8%) cases, of which 43 (82.7%) occurred ≥14 days post-vaccination. There were six deaths, three occurring in fully vaccinated individuals (7.0%, n = 3/43). There was no difference in the percentage of patients who recovered from COVID-19 (70.7% vs. 72.2%, p = .90) among fully and partially vaccinated individuals. We did not identify any differences in hospitalization (60.5% vs. 55.6%, p = .72) or critical disease (20.9% vs. 33.3%, p = .30) among those who were fully versus partially vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: SOTR vaccinated against COVID-19 can still develop severe, and even critical, COVID-19 disease. Two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be insufficient to protect against severe disease and mortality in SOTR. Future studies to define correlates of protection in SOTR are needed.

Is the Omicron variant truly less virulent in solid organ transplant recipients?

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at high risk for severe disease with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Emerging variants of concern have disproportionately affected this population. Data on severity and outcomes with the Omicron variant in SOT recipients are limited. Thus we conducted this single-center, retrospective cohort study of SOT recipients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection from December 18, 2021 to January 18, 2022, when prevalence of the Omicron variant was more than 80%-95% in the community. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for hospital admission. We identified 166 SOT patients: 112 (67.5%) kidney, 22 (13.3%) liver, 10 (6.0%) lung, seven (4.2%) heart, and 15 (9.0%) combined transplants. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series was completed in 59 (35.5%) recipients. Ninety-nine (59.6%) and 13 (7.8%) recipients received casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab, respectively. Fifty-three (32%) recipients required hospital admission, of which 19 (35.8%) required intensive care unit level of care. Median follow-up was 50 (interquartile range, 25-59) days, with mortality reported in six (3.6%) patients. Risk factors identified for hospital admission were African American race (p < .001, odds ratio [OR] 4.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84-8.70), history of coronary artery disease (p = .031, OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.12-10.87), and maintenance immunosuppression with corticosteroids (p = .048, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.01-4.00). In conclusion, contrary to that in the general population, we found a higher hospital admission rate in SOT recipients with omicron variant infection. Further studies to investigate the efficacy of newer treatments are necessary, even as outcomes continue to improve.

Donor-derived Cryptococcus gattii sensu stricto infection in two kidney transplant recipients, southeastern United States.

Cryptococcus gattii infection is a rare cause of severe pulmonary disease and meningoencephalitis that has only recently been detected in the southeastern United States. We describe an organ transplant-associated outbreak of C. gattii infection involving an HIV-negative immunosuppressed donor in this region who died following new-onset headache and seizure of unknown cause. Retrospective cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing of donor serum was positive. Two of the three transplant recipients developed severe C. gattii infection 11 and 12 weeks following transplantation. One recipient died from severe pulmonary infection, identified on autopsy, and the other ill recipient survived following treatment for cryptococcal meningitis. This outbreak underscores the importance of considering cryptococcosis in patients with clinical findings suggestive of subacute meningitis or other central nervous system (CNS) pathology, and the potential benefit of routine pre-transplant donor CrAg screening using lateral flow assay to guide recipient antifungal prophylaxis. The case also adds to emerging evidence that C. gattii is a potential threat in the southeastern United States.

When is it safe to perform abdominal transplantation in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: A case series.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) pandemic has negatively impacted worldwide organ transplantation. However, there is limited information on recipients transplanted after SARS-CoV-2 infection. A full understanding of this scenario is required, as transplantation is a life-saving procedure and COVID-19 remains an ongoing threat. METHODS: Abdominal organ transplant recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 prior to transplantation were identified by chart review and clinical data were collected. The primary outcome was the transplant outcome including graft loss, rejection and death, and reactivation of infection post-transplant. RESULTS: We identified 14 patients who received abdominal organ transplants after symptomatic PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; four patients had a positive PCR at the time of admission for transplantation. The median time of follow-up was 79 (22-190) days. One recipient with negative PCR before transplant tested positive 9 days after transplant. One of 14 transplanted patients developed disseminated mold infection and died 86 days after transplant. During the follow-up, only one patient developed rejection; thirteen patients had favorable graft outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to perform abdominal transplantation for patients with COVID-19 before transplant, even with positive PCR at the time of transplant. Larger studies are needed to determine the time to safe transplant after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Cefazolin plus ertapenem and heart transplantation as salvage therapy for refractory LVAD infection due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: A case series.

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is increasingly more common as the availability of donor organs in relation to failing hearts is outstandingly limited. Infections are the most common complications in LVAD recipients, particularly those caused by Staphylococcus spp. Refractory LVAD-related infections are not uncommon as achieving adequate source control is often not feasible before heart transplantation. Evidence suggest that cefazolin plus ertapenem is effective in refractory methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia, but this approach has not been described in LVAD recipients. In this article, we report two cases of refractory MSSA bacteremia in LVAD recipients that were successfully treated with salvage therapy with cefazolin plus ertapenem and subsequent heart transplantation. This treatment strategy should be considered in patients with refractory LVAD-associated infection due to MSSA that are not responding to standard treatment.

Treatment of latent tuberculosis infection with short-course regimens in potential living kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment data for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among potential living kidney donors are scarce. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the prevalence of positive QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) among potential living kidney donors that were screened from 2009 to 2017. We investigated if there was any difference in the time to donation between QFT-GIT-positive and QFT-GIT-negative donors. We assessed the regimens used to treat LTBI and whether the recipients of QFT-GIT-positive donors developed active tuberculosis (TB). RESULTS: Forty out of 427 (9%) potential living kidney donors had a positive QFT-GIT. QFT-GIT-positive donors were as likely as negative donors to undergo donation (30 [75%] vs 315 [81%], P = .33). The time from QFT-GIT testing to donation was longer among QFT-GIT-positive donors (median 221 days [range: 4-1139] vs 86 days [range: 3-1887], P = .001). Twelve-week rifapentine (RPT)/Isoniazid (INH) was the most common treatment used and was not associated with significant adverse reactions. There was a trend toward longer time to donation among QFT-GIT-positive donors who were treated for LTBI compared with QFT-GIT-positive donors who were not (252 days [range: 88-1139] vs 95 days [range: 4-802], P = .05). Twenty-nine recipients of QFT-GIT-positive living kidney donors were evaluated. Eleven of these recipients received kidneys from donors that were not treated for LTBI. Two of these recipients were treated with INH post-transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The time from QFT-GIT testing to donation was longer among QFT-GIT-positive donors. The short-course regimens appear to be excellent options for LTBI treatment among living kidney donors and avoid delaying organ donation further.

Kidney transplantation during coronavirus 2019 pandemic at a large hospital in Miami.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in more than 350 000 deaths worldwide. The number of kidney transplants has declined during the pandemic. We describe our deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) experience during the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the safety of DDKT during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple preventive measures were implemented. Adult patients that underwent DDKT from 3/1/20 to 4/30/20 were included. COVID-19 clinical manifestations from donors and recipients, and post-transplant outcomes (COVID-19 infections, readmissions, allograft rejection, and mortality) were obtained. The kidney transplant (KT) recipients were followed until 5/31/20. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients received kidneys from 57 donors. Fever, dyspnea, and cough were reported in 1, 2, and 1 donor, respectively. Thirty-eight (66.6%) donors were tested for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) prior to donation (mainly by nasopharyngeal or bronchoalveolar lavage polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) and 36 (47.3%) KT recipients were tested at the time of DDKT by nasopharyngeal PCR; all of these were negative. Our recipients were followed for a median of 63 (range: 33-91) days. A total of 42 (55.3%) recipients were tested post-transplant for SARS-CoV2 by nasopharyngeal PCR including 12 patients that became symptomatic; all tests were negative except for one that was inconclusive, but it was repeated and came back negative. Forty (52.6%) KT recipients were readmitted, and 7 (9.2%) had biopsy-proven rejection during the follow-up. None of the KT recipients transplanted during this period died. CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort demonstrated that DDKT can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic when preventive measures are implemented.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Hepatitis B and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Guidelines Among Trainees: A Tale of Three Centers.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B (HBV), the leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide, disproportionately affects minorities in the USA. Undiagnosed HBV precludes HCC screening and contributes to late-stage cancer presentation and decreased survival. Barriers to HBV and HCC screening include lack of insurance and limited diffusion of guidelines. We aimed to assess knowledge about HBV and HCC screening indications and explore barriers to screening. METHODS: We surveyed trainees from the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospitals, Palmetto General Hospital, and Mount Sinai Medical Center. We assessed knowledge using clinical vignettes. We performed bivariate and Chi-squared analyses. RESULTS: There were 183 respondents; median age was 31 and 52% were male. The sample was 35% Hispanic, 29% White, 18% Asian, and 9% Black. Training department was Internal Medicine, 71%; Family Medicine, 11%; Infectious Diseases, 6%; or Gastroenterology, 7%. Only 59% correctly estimated national HBV prevalence; 25% correctly estimated global prevalence. In vignettes with behavioral risk factors, trainees correctly advised screening, 63-96%. However, when the risk factor was the birthplace, correct responses ranged from 33 to 53%. Overall, 45% chose an incorrect combination of HBV screening tests. Perceived barriers to screening included limited expertise in screening of immigrants and limited patient education. Respondents were more likely to recommend HCC screening in cirrhotic patients versus non-cirrhotic HBV patients. Key barriers to HCC screening included uncertainty about HCC guidelines and patient financial barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of HBV and HCC screening recommendations is suboptimal among trainees. Efforts to broadly disseminate HBV and HCC guidelines through targeted educational interventions are needed.