Evaluating the efficacy and safety of letermovir compared to valganciclovir for the prevention of human cytomegalovirus disease in adult lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplant recipients are at high risk for severe cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. Off-label use of letermovir (LET) may avert myelotoxicity associated with valganciclovir (VGCV), but data in lung transplantation are limited. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of LET prophylaxis among lung transplant recipients. METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study included lung transplant recipients who received LET for primary CMV prophylaxis following VGCV intolerance. Patients were matched 1:1 to historical VGCV controls based on age, serostatus group, and time from transplant. The primary outcome was CMV breakthrough within 1 year post-LET initiation; secondary outcomes included hematologic changes. RESULTS: A total of 124 lung transplant recipients were included per group (32% CMV mismatch, D+R-), with LET initiated a median of 9.6 months post-transplantation. One CMV breakthrough event (0.8%) was observed in the LET group versus four (3.2%) in the VGCV group (p = .370). The median (interquartile range) white blood cell (WBC) count was 3.1 (2.1-5.6) at LET initiation which increased to 5.1 (3.9-7.2) at the end of follow-up (p <.001). For VGCV controls, WBC was 4.8 (3.4-7.2) at baseline and 5.4 (3.6-7.2) at the end of follow-up; this difference was not statistically significant (p = .395). Additionally, 98.4% of LET patients experienced ≥1 leukopenia episode in the year prior to LET compared to 71.8% the year after initiation (p <.001). Similar results were observed for neutropenia (48.4% and 17.7%, p <.001). CONCLUSION: LET prophylaxis was associated with a low rate of CMV reactivation and leukopenia recovery. LET may represent a reasonable prophylaxis option for lung transplant recipients unable to tolerate VGCV.

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection may not alter the clinical course of COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: In the general population, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of severe COVID-19; however, studies in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) are lacking. We sought to describe the clinical course of COVID-19 recurrence and compare outcomes between the first and second episodes of COVID-19 in LTRs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center cohort study of LTRs with COVID-19 between January 1, 2022, and September 30, 2022, during the Omicron wave. We compared the clinical course of a second episode of COVID-19 to that of the patients' own first episode and to that of LTRs who developed a first episode during the study period. RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 24 LTRs with COVID-19 recurrence and another 75 LTRs with a first episode of COVID-19. LTRs who survived the initial episode of COVID-19 had a similar disease course with recurrence, with a trend toward reduced hospitalization (10 (41.6%) vs. 4 (16.7%), p = .114). Furthermore, compared to LTRs with a primary infection during the Omicron wave, those with a reinfection had a non-statistically significant trend toward reduced hospitalizations (aOR .391, 95% CI [.115-1.321], p = .131), shorter lengths-of-stay (median, 4 vs. 9 days, p = .181), and reduced intensive care unit admissions, intubations, and COVID-19-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: LTRs who survive the first episode of COVID-19 are likely to have a similar clinical course with recurrent episodes. Although recurrent COVID-19 may be milder, larger, well-powered studies are needed to confirm this observation. Ongoing precautions are warranted.

Pre-exposure Prophylaxis with Tixagevimab-cilgavimab did not Reduce Severity of COVID-19 in Lung Transplant Recipients with Breakthrough Infection.

Lung transplant recipients (LTRs) have an increased risk of COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab (tix-cil) is a long-acting monoclonal antibody combination granted Emergency Use Authorization approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for COVID-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in immunocompromised patients. We sought to determine whether tix-cil 300-300 mg reduced the incidence and disease severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in LTRs during the Omicron wave. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center cohort study of LTRs who had received a COVID-19 diagnosis between December 2021 and August 2022. We compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes after COVID-19 between LTRs who received tix-cil PrEP and those who did not. We then conducted propensity-score matching based on baseline characteristics and therapeutic interventions and compared clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: Of 203 LTRs who received tix-cil PrEP and 343 who did not, 24 (11.8%) and 57 (16.6%), respectively, developed symptomatic COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.669; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.415-1.079; P = 0.099). The hospitalization rate of LTRs with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave trended lower in the tix-cil group than in the non-tix-cil group (20.8% versus 43.1%; HR, 0.430; 95% CI, 0.165-1.118; P = 0.083). In propensity-matched analyses, 17 LTRs who received tix-cil and 17 LTRs who did not had similar rates of hospitalization (HR, 0.468; 95% CI, 0.156-1.402; P = 0.175), intensive care unit admission (HR, 3.096; 95% CI, 0.322-29.771; P = 0.328), mechanical ventilation (HR, 1.958; 95% CI, 0.177-21.596; P = 0.583), and survival (HR, 1.015; 95% CI, 0.143-7.209; P = 0.988). COVID-19-related mortality was high in both propensity-score-matched groups (11.8%). Conclusions: Breakthrough COVID-19 was common among LTRs despite tix-cil PrEP, possibly due to reduced efficacy of monoclonal antibodies against the Omicron variant. Tix-cil PrEP may reduce the incidence of COVID-19 in LTRs, but it did not reduce disease severity during the Omicron wave.

Apixaban for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism After Lung Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend the use of direct oral anticoagulation therapy over warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation. However, there is uncertainty and a lack of data supporting the safety and efficacy of anticoagulation therapy in lung transplant recipients. Additionally, there are unique considerations for this population, such as labile renal function and drug interactions. PROJECT AIMS: The objective of this program evaluation was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban therapy for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in lung transplant recipients. DESIGN: Medical records of all adult lung transplant recipients who received apixaban for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism treatment between January 1, 2018, and August 31, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of bleeding. Efficacy was evaluated by the recurrence of blood clots or the incidence of stroke. RESULTS: A total of 134 recipients were included in the review. Thromboembolisms occurred in 14 recipients (10%), and none experienced a stroke. Bleeding occurred in 12 recipients (9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this evaluation were similar to those seen in smaller studies of the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulation therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism in lung transplant recipients, especially in recipients taking interacting azole antifungals. Prospective, comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Carfilzomib versus rituximab for treatment of de novo donor-specific antibodies in lung transplant recipients.

INTRODUCTION: De novo donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) increase the risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). Both carfilzomib (CFZ) and rituximab (RTX) lower the mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of DSAs, but comparative data are lacking. We compared CLAD-free survival and the degree and duration of DSA depletion after treatment of LTRs with CFZ or RTX. METHODS: LTRs that received CFZ or RTX for DSA depletion between 08/01/2015 and 08/31/2020 were included. The primary outcome was CLAD-free survival. Secondary outcomes were change in MFI at corresponding loci within 6 months of treatment (ΔMFI), time to DSA rebound, and change in % predicted FEV1 6 months after treatment (ΔFEV1). RESULTS: Forty-four LTRs were identified, 7 of whom had ≥2 drug events; therefore, 53 drug events were divided into 2 groups, CFZ (n = 17) and RTX (n = 36). Use of plasmapheresis, immunoglobulin, and mycophenolate augmentation was equivalent in both groups. CLAD-free survival with a single RTX event was superior to that after ≥2 drug events (p = 0.001) but comparable to that with a single CFZ event (p = 0.399). Both drugs significantly lowered the MFI at DQ locus, and the median ΔMFI was comparable. Compared to the RTX group, the CFZ group had a shorter median interval to DSA rebound (p = 0.015) and a lower ΔFEV1 at 6 months (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Although both CFZ and RTX reduced the MFI of circulating DSAs, RTX prolonged the time to DSA rebound. Despite more pronounced improvement in FEV1 with RTX, comparable CLAD-free survival between the 2 groups suggests that both drugs offer a reasonable treatment strategy for DSAs in LTRs.

Outcomes of nontuberculous mycobacteria isolation among lung transplant recipients: A matched case-control with retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Lung transplant recipients are at increased risk for acquiring nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), but the clinical significance of NTM isolation, particularly among patients not meeting guideline-endorsed diagnostic criteria for NTM pulmonary disease, is unclear. METHODS: A case-control study of lung transplant recipients culture-positive for NTM at a large transplant center during a 7-year period (2013-2019) was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cases were matched 1:2 to non-NTM controls. The median time to NTM isolation was 10.7 months post transplant. Only 34.5% of all cases, and half of treated cases, met diagnostic criteria for NTM pulmonary infection. All-cause mortality at 12 months was numerically higher among NTM cases versus controls (20.7% vs 8.6%, P = 0.169); however, no deaths were attributed to NTM. No increase in the 12-month rate of acute rejection was observed (27.6% vs 36.2%, P = 0.477). Recent augmented immunosuppression was associated with increased odds of NTM isolation, while azithromycin prophylaxis was associated with reduced odds of NTM isolation and was not associated with macrolide resistance. Both adverse events and actual or potential drug-drug interactions occurred in more than 90% of treated cases; these events included ocular toxicity, hearing loss, and supratherapeutic calcineurin inhibitor concentrations. Eight of the 14 treated cases (57.1%) required early antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events or drug-drug interactions. CONCLUSION: Among lung transplant recipients, most patients with NTM isolation did not meet guideline criteria for infection and had outcomes similar to non‒NTM-infected patients, which may reflect transient lung colonization by NTM rather than true disease. As adverse events are common with NTM therapy, limiting unnecessary antibiotic treatment represents an area for future antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

Universal Lifelong Fungal Prophylaxis and Risk of Coccidioidomycosis in Lung Transplant Recipients Living in an Endemic Area.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplant recipients residing in the endemic region are vulnerable to severe morbidity and mortality from Coccidioides. As infection risk persists beyond the first posttransplant year, investigations evaluating extended prophylaxis durations are needed. The purpose of this study is to assess the incidence of coccidioidomycosis among lung transplant recipients receiving universal lifelong azole antifungal prophylaxis. METHODS: Patients receiving transplants from 2013-2018 and initiated on azole antifungal prophylaxis at a lung transplant center in Arizona were included and followed through 2019 or until death, second transplant, or loss to follow-up. Recipients who died or received treatment for coccidioidomycosis during the transplant admission, or who had received a previous transplant, were excluded. The primary outcome was proven or probable coccidioidomycosis with new asymptomatic seropositivity assessed secondarily. RESULTS: A total of 493 lung transplant recipients were included, with 82% initiated on itraconazole prophylaxis, 9.3% on voriconazole, and 8.5% on posaconazole. Mean age at transplant was 62 years, 77% were diabetic, and 8% were seropositive for Coccidioides pretransplant. After a median follow-up of 31 months, 1 proven infection and 1 case of new asymptomatic seropositivity (1/493 each, 0.2% incidence) occurred during the study period. The single coccidioidomycosis case occurred 5 years posttransplant in a patient who had azole prophylaxis stopped several months prior. Although within-class switches were common throughout the study period, permanent discontinuation of azole prophylaxis was rare (1.4% at end of follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Universal lifelong azole prophylaxis was associated with a low rate of coccidioidomycosis among lung transplant recipients residing in endemic regions.

Efficacy of low-dose valganciclovir in CMV R+ lung transplant recipients: a retrospective comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is extremely common after lung transplant and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current practice suggests the use of 900 mg daily of valganciclovir for CMV prophylaxis, but there is no literature assessing whether 450 mg daily of valganciclovir is sufficient in intermediate CMV risk lung transplant recipients. Therefore, we sought to assess the role of low-dose valganciclovir (LDV) versus high-dose valganciclovir (HDV) prophylaxis in intermediate-risk (R+) recipients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis on lung transplant recipients at the Norton Thoracic Institute in Phoenix, Arizona looking at intermediate-risk patients that received either valganciclovir 450 mg per day (LDV) or 900 mg/day (HDV). All patients were followed for 1 year post-transplant for incidence of CMV viremia. The primary outcome was the rate of CMV viremia as determined by a positive CMV polymerase chain reaction ([PCR] >2.7 log copies/mL). Secondary outcomes included rate of adverse events, acute cellular rejection, and mortality. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 103 patients (55 in the LDV group, 48 in the HDV group). In the LDV group, 9 patients (16.4%) developed CMV viremia compared to 4 (8.3%) in the HDV group (p=0.221) with no difference observed in adverse event rates between groups. CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference between groups for the primary outcome. However, the effect size demonstrated in this analysis may be of clinical relevance and valganciclovir 450 mg daily would not be recommended in intermediate risk lung transplant recipients at this time. To confirm our results, further prospective studies enrolling larger patient populations are necessary.

Nocardia prophylaxis, treatment, and outcomes of infection in lung transplant recipients: A matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplant recipients are at heightened risk for nocardiosis compared to other solid organ transplant recipients, with incidence rates as high as 9% and up to 30% associated mortality. No controlled studies assessing risk factors for nocardiosis in this high-risk population have been reported. METHODS: Patients undergoing lung transplantation at a single center between 2012 and 2018 and diagnosed with nocardiosis post-transplant were matched 1:2 to uninfected control subjects on the basis of age, transplant date, and sex. RESULTS: The incidence of nocardiosis in this lung transplant population was 3.4% (20/586), occurring a median of 9.4 months (range 4.4-55.2) post-transplant. In multivariable analysis, consistent use of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) in the 12 weeks prior to diagnosis was independently associated with protection against nocardiosis (OR 0.038; 95% CI 0.01-0.29; P = .002). Augmented immunosuppression in the 6 months prior to diagnosis was independently associated with the development of nocardiosis (OR 9.94; 95% CI 1.62- 61.00; P = .013). Six case patients (30%) had disseminated disease; all-cause 6-month mortality was 25%. The most common species was Nocardia farcinica (7/17 isolates), which was associated with dissemination and mortality. The most active antibiotics were TMP/SMX (100%), linezolid (100%), and amikacin (76%). Imipenem was only active against 4/17 isolates (24% susceptibility), with two isolates becoming non-susceptible later in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis was shown to be protective against nocardiosis in lung transplant recipients, while augmented immunosuppression conferred increased risk. Institutional epidemiologic data are needed to best guide empiric therapy for Nocardia, as historical in vitro data may not predict local susceptibilities.

Emergence of letermovir resistance in a lung transplant recipient with ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus infection.

Following a year of valganciclovir prophylaxis, a lung transplant recipient developed cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection that became resistant to ganciclovir, as confirmed by detection of UL97 kinase mutation M460V and a previously uncharacterized UL54 DNA polymerase mutation L516P. The latter mutation is now shown to confer ganciclovir and cidofovir resistance. As predicted from the viral genotype, foscarnet therapy was effective, but resumption of valganciclovir as secondary prophylaxis resulted in a plasma viral load rebound to 3.6 log10 copies/mL several weeks later. Valganciclovir was then replaced by letermovir, resulting in gradual viral load reduction in the first 5 weeks to below the quantitation limit (2.7 log10 copies/mL) for 1 week, followed by 10 weeks of rising viral loads reaching 4.3 log10 copies/mL while on letermovir. At this point, CMV genotypic testing revealed UL56 mutation C325Y, which confers absolute resistance to letermovir. Retreatment with foscarnet was successful. This case adds to the considerable list of proven ganciclovir resistance mutations, and provides an early experience with letermovir resistance after off-label therapeutic use. This experience is consistent with in vitro observations of rapid emergence of letermovir-resistant CMV after drug exposure.

Effect of pirfenidone on wound healing in lung transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: The drug pirfenidone has been shown to slow the progression and decrease mortality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Its exact mechanism is unknown, but it likely inhibits pro-fibrotic cytokine transforming growth factor beta, a known contributor to wound healing. We evaluated whether patients taking pirfenidone until lung transplantation had increased risk of impaired wound healing post-transplant. This information could determine whether pirfenidone should be discontinued prior to listing to allow for a wash-out period. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lung transplantation for pulmonary fibrosis at Norton Thoracic Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, from January 2014 to December 2015. RESULTS: We describe 18 patients who took pirfenidone up to a month before transplant. Aside from one patient who experienced sternal dehiscence due to a surgical issue, all remaining patients did well with no evidence of airway dehiscence. Each of these 17 patients had been on pirfenidone for at least 30 days; nine patients had been on pirfenidone for over 90 days. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, renal function, liver function, glucose level, pre-transplant corticosteroid use, and post-transplant immunosuppressant therapy were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, pirfenidone may be safely continued until lung transplantation. Only one patient in our series experienced impaired wound healing related to a surgical issue, even when pirfenidone was continued until lung transplantation. We found no evidence of impaired wound healing or airway complications after lung transplantation in patients who were treated with pirfenidone before lung transplantation.