Hospital- and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia early after Lung Transplantation: a prospective Study on Incidence, Pathogen Origin and Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Hospital- (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are important complications early (<30 days) after lung transplantation (LT). However, current incidence, associated factors and outcomes are not well reported. METHODS: LT recipients transplanted at our institution (07/2019-01/2020 and 10/2021-11/2022) were prospectively included. We assessed incidence and presentation of pneumonia and evaluated the impact of associated factors using regression models. In addition, we evaluated molecular relatedness of respiratory pathogens collected peri-transplant and at pneumonia occurrence using pulsed-field-gel-electrophoresis (PFGE). RESULTS: In the first 30 days post-LT, 25/270 (9.3%) recipients were diagnosed with pneumonia (68% [17/25] VAP; 32% [8/25] HAP). Median time to pneumonia was 11 days (IQR 7-13). 49% (132/270) of donor and 16% (44/270) of recipient respiratory peri-transplant cultures were positive. However, pathogens associated with pneumonia were not genetically related to either donor or recipient cultures at transplant, as determined by PFGE.Diagnosed pulmonary hypertension (HR 4.42, 95% CI 1.62-12.08) and immunosuppression use (HR 2.87, 95% CI 1.30-6.56) were pre-transplant factors associated with pneumonia.Pneumonia occurrence was associated with longer hospital stay (HR 5.44, 95% CI 2.22-13.37) and VAP with longer ICU stay (HR 4.31, 95% CI: 1.73-10.75) within the first 30 days post-transplant; 30- and 90-day mortality were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively assessed early pneumonia incidence occurred in around 10% of LT. Populations at increased risk for pneumonia occurrence include LT with pre-transplant pulmonary hypertension and pre-transplant immunosuppression. Pneumonia was associated with increased healthcare use, highlighting the need for further improvements by preferentially targeting higher-risk patients.

The emerging role of generative artificial intelligence in transplant medicine.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), a subset of machine learning that creates new content based on training data, has witnessed tremendous advances in recent years. Practical applications have been identified in health care in general, and there is significant opportunity in transplant medicine for generative AI to simplify tasks in research, medical education, and clinical practice. In addition, patients stand to benefit from patient education that is more readily provided by generative AI applications. This review aims to catalyze the development and adoption of generative AI in transplantation by introducing basic AI and generative AI concepts to the transplant clinician and summarizing its current and potential applications within the field. We provide an overview of applications to the clinician, researcher, educator, and patient. We also highlight the challenges involved in bringing these applications to the bedside and need for ongoing refinement of generative AI applications to sustainably augment the transplantation field.

Longitudinal outcomes of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients from 2020 to 2023.

Data regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTr) across severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) waves, including the impact of different measures, are lacking. This cohort study, conducted from March 2020 to May 2023 in Toronto, Canada, aimed to analyze COVID-19 outcomes in 1975 SOTr across various SARS-CoV-2 waves and assess the impact of preventive and treatment measures. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19, defined as requiring supplemental oxygen, with secondary outcomes including hospitalization, length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. SARS-CoV-2 waves were categorized as Wildtype/Alpha/Delta (318 cases, 16.1%), Omicron BA.1 (268, 26.2%), Omicron BA.2 (268, 13.6%), Omicron BA.5 (561, 28.4%), Omicron BQ.1.1 (188, 9.5%), and Omicron XBB.1.5 (123, 6.2%). Severe COVID-19 rate was highest during the Wildtype/Alpha/Delta wave (44.6%), and lower in Omicron waves (5.7%-16.1%). Lung transplantation was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR: 4.62, 95% CI: 2.71-7.89), along with rituximab treatment (OR: 4.24, 95% CI: 1.04-17.3), long-term corticosteroid use (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.46-6.62), older age (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.30-1.76), chronic lung disease (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.36-3.30), chronic kidney disease (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.17-4.07), and diabetes (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37-2.83). Early treatment and ≥3 vaccine doses were associated with reduced severity (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.46, and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.21-0.60, respectively). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab and bivalent boosters did not show a significant impact. The study concludes that COVID-19 severity decreased across different variants in SOTr. Lung transplantation was associated with worse outcomes and may benefit more from preventive and early therapeutic interventions.

Evaluating the Implementation of a Remote-Monitoring Program for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Qualitative Methods from a Service Design Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Implementing digital health technologies is complex but can be facilitated by considering the features of the tool that is being implemented, the team that will use it, and the routines that will be affected. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the implementation of a remote-monitoring initiative for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Ontario, Canada using the Tool+Team+Routine framework and to refine this approach to conceptualize the adoption of technologies in health care. METHODS: This study was a qualitative research project that took place alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing a technology-enabled self-monitoring program with a technology-enabled self- and remote-monitoring program in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and with standard care. This study included interviews with 5 remote-monitoring patients, 3 self-monitoring patients, 2 caregivers, 5 health care providers, and 3 hospital administrators. The interview questions were structured around the 3 main concepts of the Tool+Team+Routine framework. RESULTS: Findings emphasized that (1) technologies can alter relationships between providers and patients, and that these relationships drove the development of a new service arising from the technology, in our case, and (2) technologies can create additional work that is not visible to management as a result of not being considered within the scope of the service. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on the implementation of digital health technologies has still not reconciled the importance of interpersonal relationships to conventional implementation strategies. By acknowledging the centrality of such relationships, implementation teams can better plan for the adaptations required in order to make new technologies work for patients and health care providers. Further work will need to address how specific individuals administering a remote-monitoring program work to build relationships, and how these relationships and other sources of activity might lead to technological scope creep-an unanticipated expanding scope of work activities in relation to the function of the tool.

Technology-Enabled Self-Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease With or Without Asynchronous Remote Monitoring: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and leads to frequent hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits. COPD exacerbations are an important patient outcome, and reducing their frequency would result in significant cost savings. Remote monitoring and self-monitoring could both help patients manage their symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but they have different resource implications and have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of implementing a technology-enabled self-monitoring program versus a technology-enabled remote monitoring program in patients with COPD compared with a standard care group. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a remote monitoring and a self-monitoring program relative to standard care. Patients with COPD were recruited from outpatient clinics and a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Patients in both interventions used a Bluetooth-enabled device kit to monitor oxygen saturation, blood pressure, temperature, weight, and symptoms, but only patients in the remote monitoring group were monitored by a respiratory therapist. All patients were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after program initiation. Outcomes included self-management skills, as measured by the Partners in Health (PIH) Scale; patient symptoms measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); and the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ). Patients were also asked to self-report on health system use, and data on health use were collected from the hospital. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients participated in the study: 40 in the standard care, 41 in the self-monitoring, and 41 in the remote monitoring groups. Although all 3 groups improved in PIH scores, BCKQ scores, and SGRQ impact scores, there were no significant differences among any of the groups. No effects were observed on the SGRQ activity or symptom scores or on hospitalizations, ED visits, or clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Despite regular use of the technology, patients with COPD assigned to remote monitoring or self-monitoring did not have any improvement in patient outcomes such as self-management skills, knowledge, or symptoms, or in health care use compared with each other or with a standard care group. This may be owing to low health care use at baseline, the lack of structured educational components in the intervention groups, and the lack of integration of the action plan with the technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03741855.

Outcomes of telehealth care for lung transplant recipients.

Telehealth uses videoconferencing to provide long-distance clinical care. Experience with telehealth in the setting of organ transplantation is limited. The purpose of this cohort study was to compare the impact of telehealth vs in-person follow-up of lung transplant recipients. Telehealth eligible patients were three or more years post-transplant and resided in Ontario outside the Greater Toronto Area. Patients with initial telehealth visits between July 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2014, were retrospectively reviewed to assess outcomes of chronic lung allograft dysfunction progression and mortality until December 31, 2016, compared with eligible patients seen in-person. Of eligible patients (n = 204), 119 (58.3%) were seen via telehealth. Most patients (97%) rated telehealth as equivalent or superior to clinic visits. Telehealth visits resulted in significant out-of-pocket cost savings and travel distance savings for patients. There was no significant difference in mortality from the time of first visit (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49-1.32, P = 0.4) or from the time of transplant between groups (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43-1.17, P = 0.2). Telehealth can safely and effectively be used in select transplant recipients to increase access to care and reduce time and financial burdens for patients residing greater distances from primary transplant centers.

Proceedings of the 2024 Transplant AI Symposium.

With recent advancements in deep learning (DL) techniques, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent in all fields. Currently valued at 9.01 billion USD, it is a rapidly growing market, projected to increase by 40% per annum. There has been great interest in how AI could transform the practice of medicine, with the potential to improve all healthcare spheres from workflow management, accessibility, and cost efficiency to enhanced diagnostics with improved prognostic accuracy, allowing the practice of precision medicine. The applicability of AI is particularly promising for transplant medicine, in which it can help navigate the complex interplay of a myriad of variables and improve patient care. However, caution must be exercised when developing DL models, ensuring they are trained with large, reliable, and diverse datasets to minimize bias and increase generalizability. There must be transparency in the methodology and extensive validation of the model, including randomized controlled trials to demonstrate performance and cultivate trust among physicians and patients. Furthermore, there is a need to regulate this rapidly evolving field, with updated policies for the governance of AI-based technologies. Taking this in consideration, we summarize the latest transplant AI developments from the Ajmera Transplant Center's inaugural symposium.

Clinical Deployment of Machine Learning Tools in Transplant Medicine: What Does the Future Hold?

Medical applications of machine learning (ML) have shown promise in analyzing patient data to support clinical decision-making and provide patient-specific outcomes. In transplantation, several applications of ML exist which include pretransplant: patient prioritization, donor-recipient matching, organ allocation, and posttransplant outcomes. Numerous studies have shown the development and utility of ML models, which have the potential to augment transplant medicine. Despite increasing efforts to develop robust ML models for clinical use, very few of these tools are deployed in the healthcare setting. Here, we summarize the current applications of ML in transplant and discuss a potential clinical deployment framework using examples in organ transplantation. We identified that creating an interdisciplinary team, curating a reliable dataset, addressing the barriers to implementation, and understanding current clinical evaluation models could help in deploying ML models into the transplant clinic setting.

Clinical Deployment of Machine Learning Tools in Transplant Medicine: What Does the Future Hold?

Medical applications of machine learning (ML) have shown promise in analyzing patient data to support clinical decision-making and provide patient-specific outcomes. In transplantation, several applications of ML exist which include pretransplant: patient prioritization, donor-recipient matching, organ allocation, and posttransplant outcomes. Numerous studies have shown the development and utility of ML models, which have the potential to augment transplant medicine. Despite increasing efforts to develop robust ML models for clinical use, very few of these tools are deployed in the healthcare setting. Here, we summarize the current applications of ML in transplant and discuss a potential clinical deployment framework using examples in organ transplantation. We identified that creating an interdisciplinary team, curating a reliable dataset, addressing the barriers to implementation, and understanding current clinical evaluation models could help in deploying ML models into the transplant clinic setting.

Predictors of 1-year mortality after adult lung transplantation: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors in lung transplantation are those variables that are associated with transplant outcomes. Knowledge of donor and recipient prognostic variables can aid in the optimal allocation of donor lungs to transplant recipients and can also inform post-operative discussions with patients about prognosis. Current research findings related to prognostic factors in lung transplantation are inconsistent and the relative importance of various factors is unclear. This review aims to provide the best possible estimates of the association between putative prognostic variables and 1-year all-cause mortality in adult lung transplant recipients. METHODS: We searched 5 bibliographic databases for studies assessing the associations between putative predictors (related to lung donors, recipients, or the transplant procedure) and 1-year recipient mortality. We pooled data across studies when justified and utilized GRADE methodology to assess the certainty in the evidence. RESULTS: From 72 eligible studies (2002-2020), there were 34 recipient variables, 4 donor variables, 10 procedural variables, and 7 post-transplant complication variables that were amenable to a meta-analysis. With a high degree of certainty in the evidence only post-transplant need for extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.79-2.04) predicted 1-year mortality. No donor variables appeared to predict transplant outcome with high or even moderate certainty. CONCLUSION: Across the range of contemporary donors and recipients that clinicians accept for lung transplantation, this review, with high certainty, found 1 prognostic factor that predicted 1-year mortality, and 37 additional factors with a moderate degree of certainty. The lack of prognostic significance for some widely accepted factors (e.g., donor smoking, age) likely relates to existing limits in the range of these variables at the time of donor and recipient selection.

Telerehabilitation for Lung Transplant Candidates and Recipients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Program Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift from center-based rehabilitation to telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease and lung transplantation due to infection control precautions. Clinical experience with this delivery model on a large scale has not been described. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe usage and satisfaction of providers and lung transplant (LTx) candidates and recipients and functional outcomes following the broad implementation of telerehabilitation with remote patient monitoring during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was a program evaluation of providers, LTx candidates, and early LTx recipients who used a web-based, remote monitoring app for at least four weeks between March 16 and September 1, 2020, to participate in telerehabilitation. Within-subjects analysis was performed for physical activity, Self-efficacy For Exercise (SEE) scale score, aerobic and resistance exercise volumes, 6-minute walk test results, and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) results. RESULTS: In total, 78 LTx candidates and 33 recipients were included (57 [51%] males, mean age 58 [SD 12] years, 58 [52%] with interstitial lung disease, 34 [31%] with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). A total of 50 (64%) LTx candidates and 17 (51%) LTx recipients entered ≥10 prescribed exercise sessions into the app during the study time frame. In addition, 35/42 (83%) candidates agreed the app helped prepare them for surgery and 18/21 (85%) recipients found the app helpful in their self-recovery. The strongest barrier perceived by physiotherapists delivering the telerehabilitation was patient access to home exercise and monitoring equipment. Between the time of app registration and ≥4 weeks on the waiting list, 26 LTx candidates used a treadmill, with sessions increasing in mean duration (from 16 to 22 minutes, P=.002) but not speed (from 1.7 to 1.75 mph, P=.31). Quadriceps weight (pounds) for leg extension did not change (median 3.5, IQR 2.4-5 versus median 4.3, IQR 3-5; P=.08; n=37). On the Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity questionnaire (RAPA), 57% of LTx candidates scored as active, which improved to 87% (P=.02; n=23). There was a decrease in pretransplant 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) from 346 (SD 84) meters to 307 (SD 85) meters (P=.002; n=45) and no change in the SPPB result (12 [IQR 9.5-12] versus 12 [IQR 10-12]; P=.90; n=42). A total of 9 LTx recipients used a treadmill that increased in speed (from 1.9 to 2.7 mph; P=.003) between hospital discharge and three months posttransplant. Quadriceps weight increased (3 [IQR 0-3] pounds versus 5 [IQR 3.8-6.5] pounds; P<.001; n=15). At three months posttransplant, 76% of LTx recipients scored as active (n=17), with a high total SEE score of 74 (SD 11; n=12). In addition, three months posttransplant, 6MWD was 62% (SD 18%) predicted (n=8). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to provide telerehabilitation despite challenges around exercise equipment. This early experience will inform the development of a robust and equitable telerehabilitation model beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prospective Clinical, Virologic, and Immunologic Assessment of COVID-19 in Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have described the clinical features of COVID-19 in solid-organ transplant recipients. However, many have been retrospective or limited to more severe cases (hospitalized) and have not routinely included serial virological sampling (especially in outpatients) and immunologic assessment. METHODS: Transplant patients diagnosed with COVID-19 based on a respiratory sample PCR were prospectively followed up to 90 d. Patients provided consent for convalescent serum samples and serial nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibody (antinucleoprotein and anti-RBD) and viral load, respectively. RESULTS: In the 161 SOT recipients diagnosed with COVID-19, the spectrum of disease ranged from asymptomatic infection (4.3%) to hospitalization (60.6%), supplemental oxygen requirement (43.1%), mechanical ventilation (22.7%), and death (15.6%). Increasing age (OR, 1.031; 95% CI, 1.001-1.062; P = 0.046) and ≥2 comorbid conditions (OR, 3.690; 95% CI, 1.418-9.615; P = 0.007) were associated with the need for supplemental oxygen. Allograft rejection was uncommon (3.7%) despite immunosuppression modification. Antibody response at ≥14 d postsymptoms onset was present in 90% (anti-RBD) and 76.7% (anti-NP) with waning of anti-NP titers and stability of anti-RBD over time. Median duration of nasopharyngeal positivity was 10.0 d (IQR, 5.5-18.0) and shedding beyond 30 d was observed in 6.7% of patients. The development of antibody did not have an impact on viral shedding. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the spectrum of COVID-19 illness in transplant patients. Risk factors for severe disease are identified. The majority form antibody by 2 wk with differential stability over time. Prolonged viral shedding was observed in a minority of patients. Reduction of immunosuppression was a safe strategy.

Impact of Postoperative Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in Lung Transplant Recipients.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after lung transplant (LTx), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is increasingly of use to critically ill patients who have developed AKI. However, the optimal timing or threshold of kidney impairment for which to commence CRRT after LTx has been uncertain. There has also been limited information on the impact of CRRT among LTx recipients (LTRs) introduced in the early posttransplant period on survival, graft function, and renal function. We aimed to review LTRs who developed AKI requiring CRRT postoperatively and followed their long-term outcomes at Tohoku University Hospital (TUH). METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients who underwent LTx at TUH between 2000 and 2018 were reviewed, with follow-up to 2019 inclusive. RESULTS: Although mortality in those who required CRRT (n = 21) was increased versus those who did not require CRRT (n = 85)(P = 0.024), conditional survival beyond 3-month posttransplant was not affected (P = 0.131). Additionally, the cumulative incidence of chronic lung allograft rejection (P = 0.160) and the development of chronic kidney disease (P = 0.757) were not significant between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The initiation of CRRT posttransplant may be a useful strategy to preserve cardiac and optimize volume management among critically ill patients.

Prevention of viral transmission during lung transplantation with hepatitis C-viraemic donors: an open-label, single-centre, pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of organ donors test positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. To date, only a few studies have evaluated the safety of using lungs from these donors for transplantation, and no direct interventions to donor organs have been done with the aim of preventing HCV transmission via organ transplantation. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of lung transplantation in humans from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients after application of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) plus ultraviolet C (UVC) perfusate irradiation. METHODS: We did a single centre, prospective, open-label, non-randomised trial in which donor lungs from HCV-viraemic donors (HCV-positive) were transplanted into HCV-negative recipients at Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network (Toronto, ON, Canada). Donors were younger than 65 years old and tested positive for HCV by nucleic acid testing. Donors who tested positive for hepatitis B virus, HIV, human T-lymphotropic virus 1 or 2 were excluded. Recipients were on the lung transplant waiting list without significant liver disease (stage 2 fibrosis or higher were excluded) or active HCV infection. Before implantation, all HCV-positive donor lungs were treated with EVLP with or without UVC perfusate irradiation to reduce the concentration of HCV RNA and infectivity. For the first week after transplantation, patients' HCV RNA blood concentrations were measured once daily, then once per week for 12 weeks. All patients received 12 weeks of oral sofosbuvir 400 mg plus velpatasvir 100 mg, starting at least 2 weeks after transplantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of survival and HCV-free status at 6 months after transplantation in all patients who received HCV-positive lungs. Patient outcomes such as survival, time in hospital, and incidence of acute rejection were compared between those receiving HCV-positive lungs and all patients who received HCV-negative lung transplants during the study period. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03112044. FINDINGS: From Oct 1, 2017, to Nov 1, 2018, 209 patients had a transplantation; of 27 donors who were HCV-positive and initially considered, 22 were suitable for transplantation. The remaining 187 donors were HCV-negative. Before implantation, 11 of the HCV-positive donor lungs were treated with EVLP alone and the other 11 were treated with EVLP plus UVC. Lung disease, urgency status, and positive donor-recipient HLA crossmatch were similar between the patients who received HCV-positive and HCV-negative lungs. 20 (91%) patients in the HCV-positive group developed HCV viraemia within the first week after transplantation and had sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir treatment, starting at a median of 21 days after transplantation (IQR 16·76-24·75). Donor organ treatment with EVLP plus UVC was associated with significantly lower recipient viral loads in blood within the first week after transplantation than with EVLP alone (median of 167 IU/mL [IQR 20-12 000] vs 4390 IU/mL [1170-112 000] at day 7; p=0·048) and prevented transmission in two (18%) of 11 patients. All 20 infected patients achieved negative HCV PCR within 6 weeks of treatment initiation. The primary endpoint of survival and HCV-free status at 6 months after transplantation was achieved in 19 (86%) of 22 patients in the HCV-positive group. 6-month survival was 95% in recipients receiving lungs from HCV-viraemic donors versus 94% in recipients receiving lungs from HCV-negative donors. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the HCV-positive group were respiratory complications (five [23%]) and infections (four [18%]). Serious adverse events requiring admission to hospital occurred in ten (45%) patients. One (5%) patient who did not develop HCV infection died at day 31 from multiorgan failure related to pseudomonas sepsis. Two patients presented with HCV relapse within 3 months after sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir completion and required retreatment. INTERPRETATION: Early and intermediate clinical outcomes were not significantly different between patients receiving viraemic HCV donor lungs and HCV-negative donor lungs. Donor organ treatment with UVC perfusate irradiation during EVLP significantly decreased HCV viral loads within the first 7 days after transplantation and shows the proof-of-concept for a novel approach of minimising viral load ex vivo before transplantation, with intent of preventing donor-recipient transmission. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Predictors of 1-year mortality in adult lung transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Upon surviving the first year post-lung transplantation, recipients can expect a median survival of 8 years. Within the first year, graft failure and multi-organ failure (possibly secondary to graft failure) are common causes of mortality. To better understand the prognosis within the first year, we plan on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies addressing the association between the patient, donor, and transplant operative factors and graft loss 1-year post-lung transplant. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register, and PubMed supplemental for non-MEDLINE records for observational studies identifying independent risk factors for early mortality (1 year) in adult lung transplant recipients. We plan on including cohort studies and secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials studying adult lung transplant recipients undergoing their first lung transplant, without any simultaneous organ transplant. We will conduct a random-effects meta-analysis that pools the effect estimates from all eligible studies to obtain a summary estimate and confidence interval for all independent non-therapeutic factors identified in the primary studies. DISCUSSION: The results from this study may inform future guidelines on the selection of candidates and donors for transplantation and predictive model development and inform the decision-making process that the physician and patient undertake together. Furthermore, through the conduction of this review, we can identify the limitations with the current best evidence, which will encourage the need for studies with a better methodology to reassess the predictors of mortality.

Technology-Enabled Self-Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease With or Without Asynchronous Remote Monitoring: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of mortality worldwide. Reducing the number of COPD exacerbations is an important patient outcome and a major cost-saving approach. Both technology-enabled self-monitoring (SM) and remote monitoring (RM) programs have the potential to reduce exacerbations, but they have not been directly compared with each other. As RM is a more resource-intensive strategy, it is important to understand whether it is more effective than SM. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of SM and RM on self-management behaviors, COPD disease knowledge, and respiratory status relative to standard care (SC). METHODS: This was a 3-arm open-label randomized controlled trial comparing SM, RM, and SC completed in an outpatient COPD clinic in a community hospital. Patients in the SM and RM groups recorded their vital signs (oxygen, blood pressure, temperature, and weight) and symptoms with the Cloud DX platform every day and were provided with a COPD action plan. Patients in the RM group also received access to a respiratory therapist (RT). The RT monitored their vital signs intermittently and contacted them when their vitals varied outside of predetermined thresholds. The RT also contacted patients once a week irrespective of their vital signs or symptoms. All patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 groups and assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months after program initiation. The primary outcome was the Partners in Health scale, which measures self-management skills. Secondary outcomes included the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and modified-Medical Research Council Breathlessness Scale. Patients were also asked to self-report on health system usage. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients participated in the study, 40 in the SC, 41 in the SM, and 41 in the RM groups. Out of those patients, 7 in the SC, 5 in the SM, and 6 in the RM groups did not complete the study. There were no significant differences in the rates of study completion among the groups (P=.80). CONCLUSIONS: Both SM and RM have shown promise in reducing acute care utilization and exacerbation frequencies. As far as we are aware, no studies to date have directly compared technology-enabled self-management with RM programs in COPD patients. We believe that this study will be an important contribution to the literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03741855. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13920.

Smartphone technology: a reliable and valid measure of knee movement in knee replacement.

Knee range of motion (ROM) following a knee arthroplasty is an important clinical outcome that directly relates to the patient's physical function. Smartphone technology has led to the creation of applications that can measure ROM. The aim was to determine the concurrent reliability and validity of the photo-based application 'Dr Goniometer' (DrG) compared with a universal goniometer performed by a clinician. A smartphone camera was used to take photographs of the knee in full flexion and full extension, and the images were sent by participants to a study phone. Participants then rated the ease of participation. To assess validity, the patient's knee was measured by a clinician using a goniometer. To examine reliability, four clinicians assessed each image using DrG on four separate occasions spaced 1 week apart. A total of 60 images of knee ROM for 30 unicondylar or total knee arthroplasty were assessed. The goniometer and DrG showed strong correlations for flexion (r=0.94) and extension (r=0.90). DrG showed good intrarater reliability and excellent inter-rater reliability for flexion (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.990 and 0.990) and good reliability for extension (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.897 and 0.899). All participants found the process easy. DrG was proven to be a valid and reliable tool in measuring knee ROM following arthroplasty. Smartphone technology, in conjunction with patient-reported outcomes, offers an accurate and practical way to remotely monitor patients. Benefit may be found in differentiating those who need face-to-face clinical consult to those who do not.

Outcome of latent tuberculosis infection in solid organ transplant recipients over a 10-year period.

BACKGROUND: Screening and therapy of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is recommended in solid organ transplant (SOT). However, there are limited data on the tolerability of LTBI therapy pretransplant and posttransplant. We studied the tolerability of LTBI therapy and effectiveness of a centralized LTBI treatment program in a low-risk population. METHODS: Provincial TB and transplant databases were retrospectively reviewed for LTBI therapy referrals in SOT candidates and recipients over a 10-year period. Using univariate logistic regression, we examined factors associated with failure to complete therapy and followed patients for active TB. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2010, 200/461 SOT candidates referred to the TB program (43.4%) were eligible for therapy for LTBI. Eleven patients refused therapy. The remaining patients (n=189) were initially prescribed isoniazid (73%), rifampin (12.7%), or another regimen (14.3%). Adequate LTBI therapy occurred in 122 (64.5%). Patients who were liver transplant candidates or recipients were less likely to complete therapy than nonliver transplant patients (OR, 0.20; P<0.001) as were patients treated in the posttransplant phase (OR, 0.47; P=0.034). Liver enzyme elevation led to discontinuation of therapy more often in liver transplant candidates and recipients (OR, 10.48; P<0.001) and posttransplant treatment (OR, 3.50; P=0.019). In 599.4 patient-years of follow-up posttransplant (mean, 4.9 year/patient), there were no cases of active TB. CONCLUSION: A centralized referral program for LTBI therapy in transplant candidates is effective to prevent TB reactivation posttransplant. A significant proportion of liver transplant candidates and recipients do not tolerate standard LTBI therapy. Alternative therapies for these patients should be evaluated.