RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to test whether clazakizumab, a direct interleukin-6 inhibitor, benefits patients hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 disease accompanied by hyperinflammation. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, seamless phase II/III trial. SETTING: Five U.S. medical centers. PATIENTS: Adults inpatients with severe COVID-19 disease and hyperinflammation. INTERVENTIONS: Eighty-one patients enrolled in phase II, randomized 1:1:1 to low-dose (12.5 mg) or high-dose (25 mg) clazakizumab or placebo. Ninety-seven patients enrolled in phase III, randomized 1:1 to high-dose clazakizumab or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 28-day ventilator-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, frequency and duration of intubation, and frequency and duration of ICU admission. Per Data Safety and Monitoring Board recommendations, additional secondary outcomes describing clinical status and status changes, as measured by an ordinal scale, were added. Bayesian cumulative proportional odds, logistic, and Poisson regression models were used. The low-dose arm was dropped when the phase II study suggested superiority of the high-dose arm. We report on 152 patients, 74 randomized to placebo and 78 to high-dose clazakizumab. Patients receiving clazakizumab had greater odds of 28-day ventilator-free survival (odds ratio [OR] = 3.84; p [OR > 1] 99.9%), as well as overall survival at 28 and 60 days (OR = 1.75; p [OR > 1] 86.5% and OR = 2.53; p [OR > 1] 97.7%). Clazakizumab was associated with lower odds of intubation (OR = 0.2; p [OR] < 1; 99.9%) and ICU admission (OR = 0.26; p [OR < 1] 99.6%); shorter durations of ventilation and ICU stay (risk ratio [RR] < 0.75; p [RR < 1] > 99% for both); and greater odds of improved clinical status at 14, 28, and 60 days (OR = 2.32, p [OR > 1] 98.1%; OR = 3.36, p [OR > 1] 99.6%; and OR = 3.52, p [OR > 1] 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clazakizumab significantly improved 28-day ventilator-free survival, 28- and 60-day overall survival, as well as clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hyperinflammation.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Teorema de Bayes , COVID-19/complicaciones , Método Doble Ciego , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapeutics have ushered in an era in which transplanting organs from donors infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV+) into recipients without (HCV-) is an increasingly common practice. Rare but potentially life-threatening events have been reported in recipients of HCV+ organs. Since 2018 at our institution, 182 HCV- patients have received HCV+ donor organs. Here, we retrospectively reviewed cases in which recipients' family member caregivers reported sustaining needlestick exposures at home following discharge of the transplant recipient from the hospital. Caregiver needlestick exposures were passively reported in three cases of HCV+ into HCV- transplants (1.64% of such cases at our center). In all instances, the exposed individuals were aiding in diabetic management and the exposure occurred via lancets or insulin needles. In one case, the recipient viral load was undetectable at the time of the exposure but in the other two, recipients were viremic, putting their family members at risk to contract HCV infection. Surveillance for the exposed individuals was undertaken and no transmissions occurred. For centers performing HCV+ into HCV- transplants, it is important that informed consent includes discussion of potential secondary risks to family members and caregivers. Further, protocols for postexposure surveillance and for the acquisition of DAA treatment in the event of a secondary transmission should be in place.
Asunto(s)
Hepatitis C Crónica , Hepatitis C , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Cuidadores , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C/tratamiento farmacológico , Hepatitis C Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Donantes de TejidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The presence of a donor-specific positive crossmatch has been considered to be a contraindication to kidney transplantation because of the risk of hyperacute rejection. Desensitization is the process of removing hazardous preformed donor-specific antibody (DSA) in order to safely proceed with transplant. Traditionally, this involves plasmapheresis and intravenous immune globulin treatments that occur over days to weeks, and has been feasible when there is a living donor and the date of the transplant is known, allowing time for pre-emptive treatments. For sensitized patients without a living donor, transplantation has been historically difficult. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: IdeS (imlifidase) is an endopeptidase derived from Streptococcus pyogenes which has specificity for human IgG, and when infused intravenously results in rapid cleavage of IgG. METHODS: Here we present our single-center's experience with 7 highly sensitized (cPRA98-100%) kidney transplant candidates who had DSA resulting in positive crossmatches with their donors (5 deceased, 2 living) who received IdeS within 24âhours prior to transplant. RESULTS: All pre-IdeS crossmatches were positive and would have been prohibitive for transplantation. All crossmatches became negative post-IdeS and the patients underwent successful transplantation. Three patients had DSA rebound and antibody-mediated rejection, which responded to standard of care therapies. Three patients had delayed graft function, which ultimately resolved. No serious adverse events were associated with IdeS. All patients have functioning renal allografts at a median follow-up of 235 days. CONCLUSION: IdeS may represent a groundbreaking new method of desensitization for patients who otherwise might have no hope for receiving a lifesaving transplant.
Asunto(s)
Proteínas Bacterianas/inmunología , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Endopeptidasas/inmunología , Rechazo de Injerto/inmunología , Rechazo de Injerto/prevención & control , Inmunoglobulina G/inmunología , Isoanticuerpos/sangre , Trasplante de Riñón , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Histocompatibilidad/inmunología , Prueba de Histocompatibilidad , Humanos , Infusiones Intravenosas , Cuidados Intraoperatorios , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Streptococcus pyogenes , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Genetically modified xenografts are one of the most promising solutions to the discrepancy between the numbers of available human organs for transplantation and potential recipients. To date, a porcine heart has been implanted into only one human recipient. Here, using 10-gene-edited pigs, we transplanted porcine hearts into two brain-dead human recipients and monitored xenograft function, hemodynamics and systemic responses over the course of 66 hours. Although both xenografts demonstrated excellent cardiac function immediately after transplantation and continued to function for the duration of the study, cardiac function declined postoperatively in one case, attributed to a size mismatch between the donor pig and the recipient. For both hearts, we confirmed transgene expression and found no evidence of cellular or antibody-mediated rejection, as assessed using histology, flow cytometry and a cytotoxic crossmatch assay. Moreover, we found no evidence of zoonotic transmission from the donor pigs to the human recipients. While substantial additional work will be needed to advance this technology to human trials, these results indicate that pig-to-human heart xenotransplantation can be performed successfully without hyperacute rejection or zoonosis.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos , Rechazo de Injerto , Animales , Humanos , Porcinos , Trasplante Heterólogo/métodos , Xenoinjertos , Corazón , Animales Modificados GenéticamenteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The shortage of transplantable organs has led to increased utilization of kidneys that may be particularly vulnerable to ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) and delayed graft function (DGF). Kidneys from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors have additional IRI from donor procurement that results in increased risk of DGF. Verapamil may reduce IRI in kidney allografts when given at the time of organ reperfusion. This study sought to determine if intraoperative administration of verapamil (Ver) could reduce the risk of DGF in DCD kidney transplants. METHODS: A single-center retrospective matched cohort study was performed of 93 Ver (-) kidney transplant recipients compared with 93 Ver (+) kidney transplant recipients, matched by donor age, Kidney Donor Profile Index, and DCD status. Covariates that could impact DGF risk were evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The Ver (-) and Ver (+) matched cohorts did not have any significant differences in the demographic covariates. There was no difference in DGF rate between the Ver cohorts in either the overall study population or within the DCD subgroup. There was a trend toward reduced DGF in the Ver (+) cohort for cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤24 h, but this failed to achieve statistical significance. On multivariate analysis, only CIT was found to be independently associated with DGF. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative verapamil failed to reduce DGF risk in DCD kidney allografts. Limitations to this study include nonrandomization for the intraoperative administration of verapamil and the mean CIT >24 h in the study population. Only CIT was an independent prognosticator for DGF on multivariate analysis in a cohort matched for DCD status, consistent with prior studies.
RESUMEN
Transplanting hepatitis C viremic donor organs into hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipients is becoming increasingly common; however, practices for posttransplant direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment vary widely. Protracted insurance authorization processes for DAA therapy often lead to treatment delays. METHODS: At our institution, 2 strategies for providing DAA therapy to HCV- recipients of HCV+ transplants have been used. For thoracic organ recipients, an institution-subsidized course of initial therapy was provided to ensure an early treatment initiation date. For abdominal organ recipients, insurance approval for DAA coverage was sought once viremia developed, and treatment was initiated only once the insurance-authorized supply of drug was received. To evaluate the clinical impact of these 2 strategies, we retrospectively collected data pertaining to the timing of DAA initiation, duration of recipient viremia, and monetary costs incurred by patients and the institution for patients managed under these 2 DAA coverage strategies. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two transplants were performed using HCV viremic donor organs. Eighty-nine patients received DAA treatment without subsidy, and 62 received DAA treatment with subsidy. One patient who never developed viremia posttransplant received no treatment. Subsidizing the initial course enabled earlier treatment initiation (median, 4 d [interquartile range (IQR), 2-7] vs 10 [IQR, 8-13]; P < 0.001) and shorter duration of viremia (median, 16 d [IQR, 12-29] vs 36 [IQR, 30-47]; P < 0.001). Institutional costs averaged $9173 per subsidized patient and $168 per nonsubsidized patient. Three needlestick exposures occurred in caregivers of viremic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients and their caregivers stand to benefit from earlier DAA treatment initiation; however, institutional costs to subsidize DAA therapy before insurance authorization are substantial. Insurance authorization processes for DAAs should be revised to accommodate this unique patient group.