Haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis associated with bartonella peliosis hepatis following kidney transplantation in a patient with HIV.

Bacillary peliosis hepatis is a well recognised manifestation of disseminated Bartonella henselae infection that can occur in immunocompromised individuals. Haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is an immune-mediated condition with features that can overlap with a severe primary infection such as disseminated Bartonella spp infection. We report a case of bacillary peliosis hepatis and secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis due to disseminated Bartonella spp infection in a kidney-transplant recipient with well controlled HIV. The patient reported 2 weeks of fever and abdominal pain and was found to have hepatomegaly. He recalled exposure to a sick dog but reported no cat exposures. Laboratory evaluation was notable for pancytopenia and cholestatic injury. The patient met more than five of eight clinical criteria for haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Pathology review of a bone marrow core biopsy identified haemophagocytosis. A transjugular liver biopsy was done, and histopathology review identified peliosis hepatis. Warthin-Starry staining of the bone marrow showed pleiomorphic coccobacillary organisms. The B henselae IgG titre was 1:512, and Bartonella-specific DNA targets were detected by peripheral blood PCR. Treatment with doxycycline, increased prednisone, and pausing the mycophenolate component of his transplant immunosuppression regimen resulted in an excellent clinical response. Secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis can be difficult to distinguish from severe systemic infection. A high index of suspicion can support the diagnosis of systemic Bartonella spp infection in those who present with haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, especially in patients with hepatomegaly, immunosuppression, and germane animal exposures.

Unexpected Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Replication Kinetics in CMV Donor-Seropositive, Recipient-Seronegative Liver Transplant Recipients Receiving Preemptive Antiviral Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Detailed cytomegalovirus (CMV) kinetics in donor CMV-seropositive, recipient CMV-seronegative (D+/R-) transplant recipients receiving preemptive therapy (PET) have not been fully defined. METHODS: The study population consisted of the PET arm of a randomized CMV prevention trial in D+/R- liver transplant recipients. CMV DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays were performed weekly for 100 days using a sensitive assay. Viral load and clinical parameters were compared for patients with or without high-level increase (defined as higher than the group median log10 increase in viral load from baseline after PET initiation). RESULTS: Among 79 patients, 93.6% (74/79) developed an increase from baseline viral loads of median 120 IU/mL to 3350 IU/mL; 25.7% (19/74) of the patients had peak levels >10 000 IU/mL. None of the patients with rise in viral load underwent testing for CMV resistance, and viremia resolved with PET with valganciclovir. Patients with high-level increase in viral load had a significantly lower rate of recurrent viremia than those without such increase (16/40 [40%] vs 28/39 [71.8%], respectively; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of D+/R- recipients had a marked increase in viral load after initiation of PET before resolution of viremia. This phenomenon is associated with lower rates of subsequent recurrent viremia and does not necessarily imply antiviral resistance.

Acrophialophora levis brain abscess in a kidney transplant patient: A case report and review of the literature.

We report the first case of Acrophialophora levis causing cerebral phaeohyphomycosis in a solid organ transplantation recipient. A. levis is a rare cause of invasive dematiaceous fungal infection among immunocompromised persons. We describe the clinical course of a kidney transplant patient who presented with acute hemiplegia due to a brain abscess from which A. levis was isolated. We review published clinical cases attributed to Acrophialophora species infection and discuss current limitations in its identification, diagnosis and management.

Clinical Management of Patients with Ebola Virus Disease in High-Resource Settings.

Like most viral illnesses in humans, supportive care of the patient is the mainstay of clinical care for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). The goal is to maintain and sustain the patient until a specific immune response develops and clears the viral infection. Clearly, antiviral therapy may eventually help speed recovery, but supportive care will likely always be the centerpiece of care of the patient with EVD. While terrible in terms of human suffering and loss, the EVD outbreak of 2014-2016 provided an unheralded opportunity to advance our understanding in the care of patients (WHO 2016). Regardless of the care setting, resource-rich or resource-constrained, it is beneficial to have an established team of care providers. This team should consist of nurses and physicians who are familiar with clinical care of patients with EVD and have demonstrated competency using necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). Consideration should be given to having several physician specialties on the team, including critical care, infectious diseases, and anesthesiology. Additional individuals in other medical specialties should be identified in case needed during the course of caring for a patient. The National Ebola Training and Education Center (NETEC) has detailed guidance on preparations for developing a high-containment unit and care team (NETEC 2016).

Risk factors and outcomes in lung transplant recipients with nodular invasive pulmonary aspergillosis.

BACKGROUND: Whether nodular lesions have specific risk-factors or influence outcomes in lung transplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis, is not fully known. METHODS: The study population consisted of 64 consecutive lung transplant recipients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis. Nodules, with or without halo/air crescent-sign were considered nodular presentations. Outcomes assessed were response rate (successful versus unsuccessful outcome) and all-cause mortality at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 34 patients had nodular and 30 had non-nodular lesions. Presence of nodular lesions was less likely to be associated with renal failure at baseline (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI, 0.04-0.97, p = 0.047), CMV infection (adjusted OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.75, p = 0.019) and receipt of antifungal prophylaxis (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.06-0.88, p = 0.032). Successful outcome and mortality rates in the study patients were 64.0% (41/64) and 25.0% (16/64), respectively. Nodular aspergillosis was associated with significantly higher successful outcome (adjusted OR 3.35, 95% CI, 1.06-10.54, p = 0.039) and lower mortality at 12 weeks (adjusted OR 0.20, 0.05-0.78, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplant recipients with nodular lesions due to invasive aspergillosis had better outcomes than those without such lesions.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of prophylactic versus preemptive cytomegalovirus strategy in liver transplant recipients.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following solid organ transplantation (SOT). Two strategies, prophylactic, and preemptive have emerged for the prevention of CMV infection and disease after SOT. This retrospective chart review of two liver transplant cohorts: prophylactic and preemptive, compares the clinical impact of transitioning from prophylactic to preemptive strategy. The primary outcome is the incidence of CMV viremia at 3-and 6-months post-transplant. Secondary outcomes include: incidence of CMV tissue-invasive disease, acute cellular rejection, leukopenia and neutropenia, opportunistic infection rates, hospital readmission rates, and mortality at 3-and 6-months post-transplant. A total of 109 patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of CMV viremia was 4.9% and 50.0% (P < 0.001) in the prophylactic versus preemptive cohort, respectively, at 3 months post-transplant. The incidence of CMV viremia was 24.6% and 8.3% (P = 0.026) in the prophylactic versus preemptive cohort, respectively, at 6 months post-transplant. There were no statistical significant differences in the secondary outcomes between both cohorts. In conclusion, there is a statistical significant difference in time to onset of CMV viremia; however, the use of either prophylactic or preemptive strategy was not associated with significant negative clinical outcomes of CMV.