Drug-drug interactions of ritonavir-boosted SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients: experience from the initial use of lopinavir-ritonavir.

OBJECTIVES: To review the drug-drug interactions between tacrolimus and lopinavir/ritonavir in 23 patients who received solid organ transplant during the first wave of COVID-19 and to determine the efficacy as well as safety of prednisone monotherapy. METHODS: Observational study performed between March and June 2020 in solid organ transplant recipients admitted with an established diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received lopinavir/ritonavir (≥2 doses). Once lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was initiated, calcineurin inhibitor treatment was temporarily switched to prednisone monotherapy (15-20 mg/d) to avoid drug-drug interactions and toxicity. After lopinavir/ritonavir treatment completion, immunosuppressive treatment was restarted with reduced doses of prednisone-tacrolimus (target minimum blood concentration -C0- approximately 5 ng/mL). Patients were observed for 3 months to confirm the absence of rejection. RESULTS: The median time from discontinuation of tacrolimus to initiation of lopinavir/ritonavir was 14 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 12-15) and from discontinuation of lopinavir/ritonavir to resumption of tacrolimus 58 hours (IQR, 47-81). The duration of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment was 7 days (IQR, 5-7). Nine of the 21 (42.8%) patients on tacrolimus treatment had C0 above the cutoff point after lopinavir/ritonavir initiation, despite having been substituted with prednisone before lopinavir/ritonavir initiation. Three patients had very high concentrations (>40 ng/mL) and developed toxicity. No episodes of acute rejection were diagnosed. DISCUSSION: We did not observe toxicity in patients for whom tacrolimus was discontinued 24 hours before starting lopinavir/ritonavir and reintroduced at half dose 48 to 72 hours after lopinavir/ritonavir discontinuation. Prednisone monotherapy during lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was safe with no episodes of acute rejection. Experience with lopinavir/ritonavir may be applicable to the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, but larger multicentre studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Donor-derived Cell-free DNA Shows High Sensitivity for the Diagnosis of Pancreas Graft Rejection in Simultaneous Pancreas-kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Pancreas graft status in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPKTx) is currently assessed by nonspecific biochemical markers, typically amylase or lipase. Identifying a noninvasive biomarker with good sensitivity in detecting early pancreas graft rejection could improve SPKTx management. METHODS: Here, we developed a pilot study to explore donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) performance in predicting biopsy-proven acute rejection (P-BPAR) of the pancreas graft in a cohort of 36 SPKTx recipients with biopsy-matched plasma samples. dd-cfDNA was measured using the Prospera test (Natera, Inc.) and reported both as a fraction of the total cfDNA (fraction; %) and as concentration in the recipient's plasma (quantity; copies/mL). RESULTS: In the absence of P-BPAR, dd-cfDNA was significantly higher in samples collected within the first 45 d after SPKTx compared with those measured afterward (median, 1.00% versus 0.30%; median, 128.2 versus 35.3 cp/mL, respectively with both; P = 0.001). In samples obtained beyond day 45, P-BPAR samples presented a significantly higher dd-cfDNA fraction (0.83 versus 0.30%; P = 0.006) and quantity (81.3 versus 35.3 cp/mL; P = 0.001) than stable samples. Incorporating dd-cfDNA quantity along with dd-cfDNA fraction outperformed dd-cfDNA fraction alone to detect active rejection. Notably, when using a quantity cutoff of 70 cp/mL, dd-cfDNA detected P-BPAR with a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 93.7%, which was more accurate than current biomarkers (area under curve of 0.89 for dd-cfDNA (cp/ml) compared with 0.74 of lipase and 0.46 for amylase). CONCLUSIONS: dd-cfDNA measurement through a simple noninvasive blood test could be incorporated into clinical practice to help inform graft management in SPKTx patients.

Kidney transplant from a living monozygotic twin donor with no maintenance immunosuppression.

UNLABELLED: From a theoretical point of view, an alloimmune response can not take place, still some type of standard immunosuppression is used in about 60% of patients receiving kidney grafts from their monozygotic twins. We aimed at assessing clinical response in patients receiving renal grafts from a living monozygotic twin donor when no immunosuppressive therapy is used. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of patients receiving kidney grafts from their monozygotic twins from 1969 to 2013. The following data were recorded: age, renal graft recipient's primary disease, renal function, renal survival and overall survival. Immunosuppressive therapy included a single intraoperative dose of methylprednisolone 500 mg and no maintenance immunosuppression. RESULTS: Five patients with kidney grafts from their monozygotic twins were dentified in our centre. Mean age at transplantation was 33 years (27-39). One-year overall survival and graft survival were 100%. Mean creatinine level was 0.96 ± 0.2 one year after transplantation, and 1.2 ± 0.37 mg/dl at most recent follow-up. Two patients died with a functional graft more than 15 years after kidney transplantation (causes were melanoma and cardiovascular event respectively). Follow-up was lost in a patient one year after transplantation. Two patients are alive with a functioning graft at 18 months and 42.5 years after transplantation respectively. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplantation from a living monozygotic twin is associated to outstanding clinical outcomes. Immunossuppresive therapy to suppress alloimmune response in probably unnecessary 11 zygosity has been confirmed.