Letermovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in high-risk heart transplant recipients.

Letermovir is a novel agent for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease that, unlike traditional CMV DNA polymerase inhibitors, does not carry the risk of myelosuppression. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical application of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in heart transplant (HT) recipients. Between November 1, 2019, and October 1, 2021, at a single, tertiary care hospital, 17 HT recipients were initiated on letermovir due to leukopenia while on valganciclovir. Fifteen (88%) had high-risk mismatch (CMV D+/R-). Median time on letermovir was 5 months (interquartile range, 2-8 months.) At the end of the study period, nine of 17 patients (52.9%) were still on letermovir and four of the 17 (23.5%) had successfully completed the prophylaxis window on letermovir and been switched to the pre-emptive strategy. One patient developed clinically significant CMV viremia in the setting of being unable to obtain medication due to insurance barriers but was later successfully restarted on letermovir. One patient was unable to tolerate letermovir due to symptoms of headache and myalgias. Two patients developed low-level non-clinically significant CMV viremia and were switched back to valacyclovir. All patients had tacrolimus dosages reduced at time of letermovir initiation to minimize the risk of supratherapeutic tacrolimus concentration. One patient required hospitalization due to symptomatic tacrolimus toxicity. For HT recipients who cannot tolerate valganciclovir, letermovir presents an alternative for CMV prophylaxis. Close monitoring for breakthrough CMV and calcineurin inhibitor levels is necessary. Larger studies are required to further delineate its use and help provide further evidence of its safety and efficacy.

United network for organ sharing outcomes after heart transplantation for al compared to ATTR cardiac amyloidosis.

Light-chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis (CA) has a worse prognosis than transthyretin (ATTR) CA. In this single-center study, we compared post-heart transplant (OHT, orthotopic heart transplantation) survival for AL and ATTR amyloidosis, hypothesizing that these differences would persist post-OHT. Thirty-nine patients with CA (AL, n = 18; ATTR, n = 21) and 1023 non-amyloidosis subjects undergoing OHT were included. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate the impact of amyloid subtype and era (early era: from 2001 to 2007; late era: from 2008 to 2018) on survival post-OHT. Survival for non-amyloid patients was greater than ATTR (P = .034) and AL (P < .001) patients in the early era. One, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were higher for ATTR patients than AL patients in the early era (100% vs 75%, 67% vs 50%, and 67% vs 33%, respectively, for ATTR and AL patients). Survival in the non-amyloid cohort was 87% at 1 year, 81% at 3 years, and 76% at 5 years post-OHT. In the late era, AL and ATTR patients had unadjusted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates of 100%, which was comparable to non-amyloid patients (90% vs 84% vs 81%). Overall, these findings demonstrate that in the current era, differences in post-OHT survival for AL compared to ATTR are diminishing; OHT outcomes for selected patients with CA do not differ from non-amyloidosis patients.

Impact of Pretransplant Malignancy on Heart Transplantation Outcomes: Contemporary United Network for Organ Sharing Analysis Amidst Evolving Cancer Therapies.

BACKGROUND: An aging population and improved cancer survivorship have increased the number of individuals with treated malignancy who develop advanced heart failure. The benefits of heart transplantation (HT) in patients with a pretransplant malignancy (PTM) must be balanced against risks of posttransplant malignancy in the setting of immunosuppression. METHODS: Adult patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry who received HT between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020 were included. Trends, patient characteristics, and posttransplant outcomes in HT recipients with PTM were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2020, the proportion of HT recipients with PTM increased from 3.2% to 8.2%. From 2010 to 2020, 2113 (7.7%) of 27 344 HT recipients had PTM. PTM was associated with higher rates of 1-year mortality after HT (11.9% versus 9.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.09-1.44], P=0.001), driven by increased mortality in patients with hematologic PTM (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.61-2.48]; P<0.001). For recipients who survived the first year, 5-year survival was similar between patients with and without PTM. Rates of malignancy at 5-years posttransplant were higher in the PTM group (20.4% versus 13.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.79], P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of PTM in HT recipients nearly tripled over the past 2 decades. Patients with hematologic PTM were at increased risk of early mortality after HT. Patients with PTM were also at higher risk for posttransplant malignancy. Guidelines that reflect contemporary oncological care are needed to inform care of this heterogenous and expanding group of individuals.

Exception Status Listing in the New Adult Heart Allocation System: A New Solution to an Old Problem?

BACKGROUND: One of the goals of the revised 6-tiered US adult heart allocation policy was to improve risk stratification of patients to lower exception status utilization for transplant listing. We sought to define the characteristics and outcomes of waitlisted patients using exception status and to examine region- and center-level differences in utilization of exception status in the new heart allocation system. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database included adult waitlisted patients for heart transplant between October 18, 2018, and June 30, 2020, in the United States, stratified by use of exception status versus standard criteria. RESULTS: Out of 6351 patients, 1907 (30.0%) were waitlisted under exception status. Patients using exception status were more likely to have a nonischemic cause of heart failure, blood type O, United Network for Organ Sharing status 2 at listing and were less likely to have a durable left ventricular assist device at listing. Exception status utilization varied significantly between and within United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Listing by exception criteria was associated with a significantly higher incidence of heart transplantation compared with listing by standard criteria (hazard ratio, 1.25 [1.15-1.38], P<0.001), without increased risk of death or delisting for worsening clinical status (hazard ratio, 0.83 [0.65-1.05], P=0.12) after multivariable adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The status tiers of the new heart allocation system may not fully capture medical urgency and complexity of waitlisted patients as assessed by transplant physicians and review committees and may limit the ability to develop a heart allocation score.