Germinal center responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in healthy and immunocompromised individuals.

Vaccine-mediated immunity often relies on the generation of protective antibodies and memory B cells, which commonly stem from germinal center (GC) reactions. An in-depth comparison of the GC responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in healthy and immunocompromised individuals has not yet been performed due to the challenge of directly probing human lymph nodes. Herein, through a fine-needle aspiration-based approach, we profiled the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in lymph nodes of healthy individuals and kidney transplant recipients (KTXs). We found that, unlike healthy subjects, KTXs presented deeply blunted SARS-CoV-2-specific GC B cell responses coupled with severely hindered T follicular helper cell, SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain-specific memory B cell, and neutralizing antibody responses. KTXs also displayed reduced SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell frequencies. Broadly, these data indicate impaired GC-derived immunity in immunocompromised individuals and suggest a GC origin for certain humoral and memory B cell responses following mRNA vaccination.

A survey of solid organ transplant recipient attitudes and concerns regarding contraception and pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Many women who are solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients wish to have children after transplantation. Contraception is an important component of post-transplant planning and care, given the increased risk associated with post-transplant pregnancies. We sought to understand patient attitudes and concerns about post-transplant contraception and pregnancy. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, our team developed a survey that was administered to female SOT recipients of childbearing age. We used descriptive and inferential statistics to characterize participant views RESULTS: A total of 243 transplant recipients completed the survey (80.7% response rate). The mean age of respondents was 37.5 years (±8.1 years), 66.7% were kidney recipients, and 40.7% were within the first year after transplant. The most common concerns among respondents included fetal and maternal health complications. Participants generally did not agree that transplant recipients should be advised to avoid pregnancy. There was strong support for shared decision-making about pregnancy after transplantation CONCLUSION: Understanding patient perspectives can help transplant providers make better care recommendations and support patient autonomy in reproductive decisions post-transplant. Given that there are some differences in views by transplant type, individualized conversations between patients and providers are needed.

Tolerability of mycophenolate mofetil in elderly kidney transplant recipients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal immunosuppression in elderly kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) is not well defined, with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) being poorly tolerated. Study aim was to compare MMF dose reduction incidence and reason(s) in elderly vs. nonelderly KTRs in the 1st year after transplant with a protocol dose of 1 g/day. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, first or repeat KTRs receiving rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG), MMF 1 g/day, tacrolimus, and prednisone, were stratified by age [≥60 (elderly) or <60 years (nonelderly)]. Primary outcome was MMF dose reduction incidence in the first year. Secondary outcomes included dose reduction rationale, 1-year patient and graft survival, graft function, rejection, infection, hospital presentation, and time to dose reduction. Of 335 KTRs, dose reduction incidence was significantly greater in the elderly group (66% and 54%, p = 0.04), though this did not remain significant when adjusted for sex, race, and valganciclovir use. Most common rationale was leukopenia in the elderly group and CMV in the nonelderly group. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Mycophenolate mofetil 1 g/day was poorly tolerated in both elderly and nonelderly KTRs receiving lymphocyte-depleting induction with a high incidence of dose reductions; however, no short-term adverse graft outcomes were identified.

Experience with a six-month regimen of Pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis in 122 HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients.

Anti-Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis is recommended for 3 to 6 months post-transplant in HIV-negative kidney transplant recipients. For HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients, there is no definite duration of primary prophylaxis and is often prescribed life-long. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of PCP in HIV-positive recipients who received 6 months of prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative agent. One hundred and twenty-two HIV-positive recipients received a kidney transplant from 2001 to 2017 at Hahnemann University Hospital. Most patients received induction immunosuppression with an IL-2 receptor antagonist, with or without intravenous immunoglobulin. Only one patient received anti-thymocyte globulin. Maintenance immunosuppression included a calcineurin-inhibitor (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), an antiproliferative agent (mycophenolate or sirolimus), and prednisone. Mean CD4 cell count was 461 ± 127 cells/uL prior to transplant and 463 ± 229 cells/µL at 6 to 12 months after transplant. None of the recipients developed PCP after a median follow-up of 2.88 years (IQR 1.16-4.87). Based on our observation, a 6-month regimen of PCP prophylaxis may be sufficient among HIV-positive recipients, similar to those without HIV infection.

Barriers to kidney transplant evaluation in HIV-positive patients with advanced kidney disease: A single-center study.

BACKGROUND: HIV-positive kidney transplant (KT) recipients have similar outcomes to HIV-negative recipients. However, HIV-positive patients with advanced kidney disease might face additional barriers to initiating the KT evaluation process. We sought to characterize comorbidities, viral control and management, viral resistance, and KT evaluation appointment rates in a cohort of KT evaluation-eligible HIV-positive patients. METHODS: We included patients seen between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015, at a primary care HIV clinic who met KT evaluation eligibility by an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤20 mL/min/1.73 meters2 or dialysis dependence. The primary outcome was a documented appointment for KT evaluation. RESULTS: Of 3735 patients evaluated at the HIV primary clinic during the study period, 42 (1.6%) were KT evaluation-eligible patients. The median age was 47 years, 77% were male, and 95%, black. Median CD4 count was 328 cells/mm3 (IQR 175-461). Among the 63% percent with antiretroviral therapy (ART) prescription, 40% had viral loads >200 copies. Among patients with HIV resistance profiles (50%, n = 21), 52% had resistance to at least one class of ART. A majority (60%, n = 25) were scheduled for KT evaluation appointment, but of those, only 8% (n = 2) had evidence of appointments before dialysis dependence. Those without appointments had more schizophrenia (29% vs 4%, P = .02), resistance (78% vs 33%, P = .04), ART prescription (76% vs 48%, P = .04), and more kidney disease of unknown etiology (53% vs 8%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant evaluation-eligible HIV-positive patients had a high rate of evaluation appointments, but a low rate of preemptive evaluation appointments. Schizophrenia and viral resistance disproportionally affected patients without evaluation appointments. These data precede the recommendation for universal ART for all HIV+ patients, regardless of CD4 count and viral load, and must be interpreted in the context of this limitation.

Kidney Transplantation in HIV-Positive Patients: A Single-Center, 16-Year Experience.

Hahnemann University Hospital has performed 120 kidney transplantations in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals during the last 16 years. Our patient population represents ∼10% of the entire US population of HIV-positive kidney recipients. In our earlier years of HIV transplantation, we noted increased rejection rates, often leading to graft failure. We have established a multidisciplinary team and over the years have made substantial protocol modifications based on lessons learned. These modifications affected our approach to candidate evaluation, donor selection, perioperative immunosuppression, and posttransplantation monitoring and resulted in excellent posttransplantation outcomes, including 100% patient and graft survival at 1 year and patient and graft survival at 3 years of 100% and 96%, respectively. We present key clinical data, including a granular patient-level analysis of the associations of antiretroviral therapy regimens with long-term survival, cellular and antibody-mediated rejection rates, and the causes of allograft failures. In summary, we provide details on the evolution of our approach to HIV transplantation during the last 16 years, including strategies that may improve outcomes among HIV-positive kidney transplantation candidates throughout the United States.

Association Between Weight Loss Before Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation and Posttransplantation Outcomes.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: There is debate on whether weight loss, a hallmark of frailty, signals higher risk for adverse outcomes among recipients of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Using national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, we included all DDKT recipients in the United States between December 4, 2004, and December 3, 2014, who were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) when listed for DDKT. EXPOSURES: Relative pre-DDKT weight change as a continuous predictor and categorized as <5% weight change from listing to DDKT, ≥5% to <10% weight loss, ≥10% weight loss, ≥5% to <10% weight gain, and ≥10% weight gain. OUTCOMES: We examined 3 post-DDKT outcomes: (1) transplant hospitalization length of stay (LOS) in days, (2) all-cause graft failure, and (3) mortality. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Unadjusted fractional polynomial methods, multivariable log-gamma models, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 94,465 recipients of DDKT, median pre-DDKT weight change was 0 (interquartile range, -3.5 to +3.9) kg. There were nonlinear unadjusted associations between relative pre-DDKT weight loss and longer transplant hospitalization LOS, higher all-cause graft loss, and higher mortality. Compared with recipients with <5% pre-DDKT weight change (n = 49,366; 52%), recipients who lost ≥10% of their listing weight (n = 10,614; 11%) had 0.66 (95% CI, 0.23-1.09) days longer average transplant hospitalization LOS (P = 0.003), 1.11-fold higher graft loss (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17; P < 0.001), and 1.18-fold higher mortality (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25; P < 0.001) independent of recipient, donor, and transplant factors. Pre-DDKT dialysis exposure, listing body mass index category, and waiting time modified the association of pre-DDKT weight change with hospital LOS (interaction P < 0.10), but not with all-cause graft loss and mortality. LIMITATIONS: Unmeasured confounders and inability to identify volitional weight change. Also, the higher significance level set to increase the power of detecting interactions with the fixed sample size may have resulted in increased risk for type 1 error. CONCLUSIONS: DDKT recipients with ≥10% pre-DDKT weight loss are at increased risk for adverse outcomes and may benefit from augmented support post-DDKT.

Association of the kidney allocation system with dialysis exposure before deceased donor kidney transplantation by preemptive wait-listing status.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the new kidney transplant allocation system (KAS) has attenuated the advantages of preemptive wait-listing as a strategy to minimize pretransplant dialysis exposure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult US deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients between December 4, 2011-December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) and December 4, 2014-December 3, 2017 (post-KAS). We estimated pretransplant dialysis durations by preemptive listing status in the pre- and post-KAS periods using multivariable gamma regression models. RESULTS: Among 65 385 DDKT recipients, preemptively listed recipients (21%, n = 13 696) were more likely to be white (59% vs 34%, P < 0.001) and have private insurance (64% vs 30%, P < 0.001). In the pre- and post-KAS periods, average adjusted pretransplant dialysis durations for preemptively listed recipients were <2 years in all racial groups. Compared to recipients who were listed after starting dialysis, preemptively listed recipients experienced 3.85 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 3.71-3.99) and 4.53 (95% CI 4.32-4.74) fewer average years of pretransplant dialysis in the pre- and post-KAS periods, respectively (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Preemptively wait-listed DDKT recipients continue to experience substantially fewer years of pretransplant dialysis than recipients listed after dialysis onset. Efforts are needed to improve both socioeconomic and racial disparities in preemptive wait-listing.

Oritavancin (Orbactiv): A New-Generation Lipoglycopeptide for the Treatment Of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

Oritavancin (Orbactiv): a new-generation lipoglycopeptide for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Barriers to listing for HIV-infected patients being evaluated for kidney transplantation.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients have excellent outcomes following kidney transplantation (KT) but still might face barriers in the evaluation and listing process. The aim of this study was to characterize the patient population, referral patterns, and outcomes of HIV-infected patients who present for KT evaluation. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of HIV-infected patients who were evaluated for KT. The primary outcome was time to determination of eligibility for KT. Between 2011 and 2015, 105 HIV-infected patients were evaluated for KT. Of the 105 patients, 73 were listed for transplantation by the end of the study period. For those who were deemed ineligible, the most common reasons cited were active substance abuse (n = 7, 22%) and failure to complete the full transplant evaluation (n = 7, 22%). Our cohort demonstrated a higher proportion of HIV-infected patients eligible for KT than in previous studies, likely secondary to advances in HIV management. Among those who were denied access to transplantation, we identified that many were unable to complete the evaluation process, and that active substance abuse was common. Future prospective studies should examine reasons and potential interventions for the lack of follow-through and drug use we observed in this population.

Association of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with primary allograft survival in HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is an antiretroviral agent frequently used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). There are concerns regarding its potential to cause acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and proximal tubulopathy. Although TDF can effectively suppress HIV after kidney transplantation, it is unknown whether use of TDF-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) after kidney transplantation adversely affects allograft survival. METHODS: We examined 104 HIV+ kidney transplant (KT) recipients at our center between 2001 and 2014. We generated a propensity score for TDF treatment using recipient and donor characteristics. We then fit Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the association between TDF treatment and 3-year, death-censored primary allograft failure, adjusting for the propensity score and delayed graft function (DGF). RESULTS: Of the 104 HIV+ KT candidates who underwent transplantation during the study period, 23 (22%) were maintained on TDF-based ART at the time of transplantation, and 81 (78%) were on non-TDF-based ART. Median age of the cohort was 48 years; 87% were male; 88% were black; and median CD4 count at transplantation was 450 cells/mm3 . Median kidney donor risk index was 1.2. At 3 years post transplantation, primary allograft failure occurred in 26% of patients on TDF-based ART and in 28% of patients on non-TDF-based ART (P=.5). TDF treatment was not associated with primary allograft failure at 3 years post transplant after adjusting for DGF and a propensity score for TDF use (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 0.41-10.9). CONCLUSIONS: In a large single-center experience of HIV+ kidney transplantation, TDF use following kidney transplantation was not significantly associated with primary allograft failure. These results may help inform management for HIV+ KT recipients in need of TDF therapy for adequate viral suppression.

Validation of the Maryland Aggregate Pathology Index (MAPI), a pre-implantation scoring system that predicts graft outcome.

Predicting graft outcome after renal transplantation based on donor histological features has remained elusive and is subject to institutional variability. We have shown in a retrospective study that the Maryland Aggregate Pathology Index score reliably predicts graft outcome. We sought to validate the scoring system in our center and a second transplant center. We analyzed 140 deceased donor kidneys pre-implantation biopsies from center 1 and 65 from center 2. The patients had a mean follow-up of 695 ± 424 and 656 ± 305 d respectively. Although MAPI scores were similar, there were significant differences in donor and recipient parameters between both centers. Despite this, MAPI was predictive of graft outcome for both centers by Cox univariate, multivariate and time dependent ROC analysis. For center 1 and 2, three yr graft survival within each MAPI group was statistically equivalent. The three-yr graft survival at center 1 for low, intermediate, and high MAPI groups were 84.3%, 56.5%, and 50.0%, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001, and at center 2 were 83.3%, 33.3%, and 33.3%, p = 0.006. MAPI, which is based on a pre-implantation biopsy, demonstrated similar predictive and outcome results from both centers. As expanded criteria donors (ECD) criteria have redefined marginal kidneys, MAPI has the potential to further define ECD kidneys, increase utilization, and ultimately improve outcomes.

Duration of Perioperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation Patients.

INTRODUCTION: According to clinical guidelines, there are no differences in early infection rates when utilizing antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens beyond 24 hours. We shortened the prophylaxis regimen from 72 to 24 hours in liver transplant recipients due to rising rates of resistance. The objective of this study is to evaluate the difference in posttransplant outcomes, following the protocol change. DESIGN: We reviewed adult patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation between June 2013 and December 2015. Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts: 24 and 72 hours. Patients were excluded if donor cultures were positive. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence and time to posttransplant infections. The secondary objectives included analysis of total and intensive care unit length of stay and rates of Clostridioides difficile infection. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included, 20 in the 72-hour and 24 in the 24-hour cohorts. The incidence of post-OLT infection (30% vs 8%, P = .115, 95% CI: -1% to 45%) was higher in the 72-hour cohort. Total (21 vs 14, P = .332, 95% CI: -4% to 28%) and intensive care unit LOS (11 vs 6, P = .201, 95% CI, -5% to 31%) were longer in the 72-hour group. No difference was observed in the incidence of CDI (15% vs 13%, P = 1.000). DISCUSSION: There was no increase in posttransplant infections in the 24-hour cohort. Shorter antibiotic exposure may be associated with a reduction in length of stay and be favorable in this patient population.

Safety and Efficacy of Universal Postoperative Decolonization for Kidney Transplant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after kidney transplant. Based on the well-documented successes of reducing infections with decolonization of patients in intensive care units, we began a universal immediate posttransplant decolonization program for all kidney transplant recipients. Herein, we report safety and efficacy of this decolonization program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared a consecutive cohort of kidney transplant recipients who underwent universal decolonization (intervention group) with a cohort of transplant patients from an era immediately prior to this practice (control group). Universal decolonization included daily chlorhexidine body wash and nasal mupirocin ointment. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients who underwent universal decolonization were compared with 43 patients in the control group. Ten microbiologically proven infections (8.3%) occurred in the 30 days after discharge: 7 (9%) in the intervention group and 3 (7%) in the control group. Forty-five transplant recipients (37.2%) were readmitted in the 30 days after discharge: 31 (39.7%) in the intervention group and 14 (32.6%) in the control group. No patients in the intervention group had adverse drug events from mupirocin and chlorhexidine use. CONCLUSIONS: A universal decolonization protocol was successfully implemented and was well tolerated by all patients. Despite successful implementation, we did not observe any significant differences in infection rates between treated patients and historical controls.

Comparison of four different immunosuppression protocols without long-term steroid therapy in kidney recipients monitored by surveillance biopsy: five-year outcomes.

Induction and maintenance immunosuppression protocols with or without long-term steroid therapy in kidney transplant recipients are variable and are transplant center-specific. The aim of this prospective randomized pilot study was to compare 5-year outcomes in kidney recipients maintained on 4 different calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based immunosuppression protocols without long-term steroid therapy. Two hundred consenting patients who received kidney transplants between June 2000 and October 2004 were enrolled in 4 immunosuppression protocol groups, with 50 patients in each group: cyclosporine (CSA)/mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), CSA/sirolimus (SRL), tacrolimus (TAC)/MMF, and TAC/SRL. Induction therapy was done with basiliximab and methylprednisolone. Steroids were withdrawn on post-transplant day 2, and long-term steroid therapy was not used. Demographic characteristics among the four groups were comparable; approximately 50% of the recipients were African American and > or =80% of the kidneys transplanted were from deceased donors. Clinical acute rejection (CAR) was confirmed by biopsy and treated with intravenous pulse steroid therapy. Steroid-unresponsive CAR was treated with Thymoglobulin. Surveillance biopsies were performed at 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months to evaluate subclinical acute rejection (SCAR), chronic allograft injury (CAI), and other pathological changes per the Banff 2005 schema. The primary end point was CAR, and secondary end points were 5-year patient and graft survival rates, renal function, SCAR, CAI, and adverse events. In the first year post-transplant, the incidence of CAR was 18% in the CSA/MMF group, 8% in the CSA/SRL group, 14% in the TAC/MMF group, and 4% in the TAC/SRL group (CSA/MMF vs. TAC/SRL; p=0.05). The incidence of SCAR was 22% in the CSA/MMF group, 8% in the CSA/SRL group, 16% in the TAC/MMF group, and 6% in the TAC/SRL group (CSA/MMF vs. CSA/SRL and TAC/SRL; p=0.05). After the first year, the incidences of CAR and SCAR decreased and were comparable in all 4 groups. At 5 years post-transplant, cumulative CAI due to interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA), hypertension (HTN), and chronic calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) toxicity was observed in 54%, 48%, and 8% of the CSA/MMF group vs. 16%, 36%, and 12% of the CSA/SRL group vs. 38%, 24% and 6% of the TAC/MMF group vs. 14%, 25% and 12% of the TAC/SLR group (IF/TA: CSA/MMF vs. CSA/SRL and TAC/SRL; p=0.04, HTN: CSA/MMF vs. TAC/MMF and TAC/SRL; p=0.05, CNI toxicity: TAC/SRL and CSA/SRL vs. TAC/MMF; p=0.05). Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 82% and 60% in the CSA/MMF group, 82% and 60% in the CSA/SRL group, 84% and 62% in the TAC/MMF group, and 82% and 64% in the TAC/SRL group (p=0.9). Serum creatinine levels and creatinine clearances at 5 years were comparable among the groups. Our data show that the rates of CAR and SCAR in the first year post-transplant were significantly lower in the CSA/SRL and TAC/SRL groups and that cumulative CAI rates due to IF/TA and HTN at 5 years were significantly lower in the TAC/MMF, TAC/SRL, and CSA/SRL groups than in the CSA/MMF group. Despite significant differences in the incidences of CAR and SCAR and prevalence of different types of CAI at 5 years, renal function and patient and graft survival rates at 5 years were comparable among kidney recipients maintained on 4 different immunosuppression protocols without long-term steroid therapy.

Association between Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act and Preemptive Listings for Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Before 2014, low-income individuals in the United States with non-dialysis-dependent CKD had fewer options to attain health insurance, limiting their opportunities to be preemptively wait-listed for kidney transplantation. We examined whether expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act was associated with differences in the number of individuals who were pre-emptively wait-listed with Medicaid coverage. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using the United Network of Organ Sharing database, we performed a retrospective observational study of adults (age≥18 years) listed for kidney transplantation before dialysis dependence between January 1, 2011-December 31, 2013 (pre-Medicaid expansion) and January 1, 2014-December 31, 2016 (post-Medicaid expansion). In multinomial logistic regression models, we compared trends in insurance types used for pre-emptive wait-listing in states that did and did not expand Medicaid with a difference-in-differences approach. RESULTS: States that fully implemented Medicaid expansion on January 1, 2014 ("expansion states," n=24 and the District of Columbia) had a 59% relative increase in Medicaid-covered pre-emptive listings from the pre-expansion to postexpansion period (from 1094 to 1737 listings), compared with an 8.8% relative increase (from 330 to 359 listings) among 19 Medicaid nonexpansion states (P<0.001). From the pre- to postexpansion period, the adjusted proportion of listings with Medicaid coverage decreased by 0.3 percentage points among nonexpansion states (from 4.0% to 3.7%, P=0.09), and increased by 3.0 percentage points among expansion states (from 7.0% to 10.0%, P<0.001). Medicaid expansion was associated with absolute increases in Medicaid coverage by 1.4 percentage points among white listings, 4.0 percentage points among black listings, 5.9 percentage points among Hispanic listings, and 5.3 percentage points among other listings (P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in the proportion of new pre-emptive listings for kidney transplantation with Medicaid coverage, with larger increases in Medicaid coverage among racial and ethnic minority listings than among white listings.

Comparison of Posttransplant Dermatologic Diseases by Race.

Importance: The risk for skin cancer has been well characterized in white organ transplant recipients (OTRs); however, most patients on the waiting list for organ transplant in the United States are nonwhite. Little is known about cutaneous disease and skin cancer risk in this OTR population. Objective: To compare the incidence of cutaneous disease between white and nonwhite OTRs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review of medical records included 412 OTRs treated from November 1, 2011, through April 22, 2016, at an academic referral center. Prevalence and characteristics of cutaneous disease were compared in 154 white and 258 nonwhite (ie, Asian, Hispanic, and black) OTRs. Clinical factors of cutaneous disease and other common diagnoses assessed in OTRs included demographic characteristics, frequency and type of cancer, anatomical location, time course, sun exposure, risk awareness, and preventive behavior. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary diagnosis of malignant or premalignant, infectious, and inflammatory disease. Results: The 412 patients undergoing analysis included 264 men (64.1%) and 148 women (35.9%), with a mean age of 60.1 years (range, 32.1-94.3 years). White OTRs more commonly had malignant disease at their first visit (82 [67.8%]), whereas nonwhite OTRs presented more commonly with infectious (63 [37.5%]) and inflammatory (82 [48.8%]) conditions. Skin cancer was diagnosed in 64 (41.6%) white OTRs and 15 (5.8%) nonwhite OTRs. Most lesions in white (294 of 370 [79.5%]) and Asian (5 of 6 [83.3%]) OTRs occurred in sun-exposed areas. Among black OTRs, 6 of 9 lesions (66.7%) occurred in sun-protected areas, specifically the genitals. Fewer nonwhite than white OTRs reported having regular dermatologic examinations (5 [11.4%] vs 8 [36.4%]) and knowing the signs of skin cancer (11 [25.0%] vs 10 [45.4%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Early treatment of nonwhite OTRs should focus on inflammatory and infectious diseases. Sun protection should continue to be emphasized in white, Asian, and Hispanic OTRs. Black OTRs should be counseled to recognize the signs of genital human papillomavirus infection. Optimal posttransplant dermatologic care may be determined based on the race or ethnicity of the patients, but a baseline full-skin assessment should be performed in all patients. All nonwhite OTRs should be counseled more effectively on the signs of skin cancer, with focused discussion points contingent on skin type and race or ethnicity.

The ABCs of Immunosuppression: A Primer for Primary Care Physicians.

Immunosuppression use for prevention of allograft recognition/rejection has evolved to reflect an expanded understanding of the immune system, as well as a fine tuning of the goals of therapy. Immunosuppression in organ transplantation represents a balance between the desire to improve the health status of an individual affected by chronic conditions versus not imposing an unintended immunodeficiency leading to iatrogenic morbidity/mortality. This article discusses the selection and general dosing of immunosuppression in organ allograft recipients to allow providers to be comfortable in monitoring immunosuppressive therapy long term and the associated, expected posttransplant complications in allograft recipients.

Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Nonwhite Organ Transplant Recipients.

Importance: Organ transplant recipients have a higher incidence of skin cancer. This risk is magnified over time and with continued exposure to immunosuppression. Skin cancer in nonwhite patients is associated with greater morbidity and mortality owing to diagnosis at a more advanced stage, which suggests that nonwhite organ transplant recipients are at even higher risk. Objective: To describe demographic and clinical factors and the incidence of skin cancer in nonwhite organ transplant recipients. Design, Setting, and Participants: We performed a retrospective medical record review of patients who were organ transplant recipients (154 were white and 259 nonwhite [black, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander]) seen from November 1, 2011, to April 18, 2016 at an academic referral center. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variables were analyzed and compared between racial groups, including sex, age, race/ethnicity, Fitzpatrick type, type and location of skin cancer, type of organ transplanted, time to diagnosis of skin cancer after transplantation, and history of condyloma acuminata and/or verruca vulgaris. Results: Most of the 413 patients (62.7%) evaluated were nonwhite organ transplant recipients; 264 were men, and 149 were women. Their mean (SD) age was 60.09 (13.59) years. Nineteen skin cancers were identified in 15 patients (5.8%) representing 3 racial/ethnic groups: black (6 patients), Asian (5), and Hispanic (4). All squamous cell carcinomas in blacks were diagnosed in the in situ stage, located on sun-protected sites, and occurred in patients whose lesions tested positive for human papilloma virus (HPV) and/or who endorsed a history of condyloma acuminata or verruca vulgaris. Most skin cancers in Asians were located on sun-exposed areas and occurred in individuals who emigrated from equatorial locations. Conclusions and Relevance: Nonwhite organ transplant recipients are at risk for developing skin cancer posttransplantation. Follow-up in a specialized transplant dermatology center and baseline total-body skin examination should be part of posttransplantation care in all organ transplant recipients, including nonwhite patients. A thorough inspection of the groin and genitalia is imperative in black organ transplant recipients. History of HPV infection, particularly in black organ transplant recipients, and sun exposure/emigration history in Asian organ transplant recipients should be documented. Vigilant photoprotection may be of lesser importance in the prevention of skin cancer in black organ transplant recipients. Risk factors for nonwhite organ transplant recipients differ between races/ethnicities and warrant further study in efforts to better counsel and prevent skin cancer in these patients.

Vismodegib for locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in a heart transplant patient.

IMPORTANCE: Immunosuppressed patients with solid organ transplants have an increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer. Vismodegib has been reported to be effective for select locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinomas. However, there is no data documenting the use and safety of vismodegib in immunosuppressed organ transplant patients. OBSERVATIONS: We describe a 78-year-old white man with a history of orthotopic heart transplant, immunosuppressed with low-dose cyclosporine, who presented to a specialty dermatology transplant clinic with multiple, recurrent, locally aggressive facial basal cell carcinomas. Through a multidisciplinary approach, the patient was started on vismodegib therapy. The pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in the setting of vismodegib administration and weekly monitoring of cyclosporine levels ensured that therapeutic immunosuppression levels were achieved without toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first report that details vismodegib use in an immunosuppressed heart transplant patient receiving cyclosporine therapy. With a growing immunosuppressed organ transplant population at high risk for basal cell carcinoma, therapeutic options for locally advanced or metastatic disease are limited. Vismodegib appears to be a safe option for patients receiving cyclosporine therapy with routine monitoring. Future research is needed to evaluate the safety profile of vismodegib with other immunosuppressive agents.