Anti-spike antibody durability after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adolescent solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent solid organ transplant recipients (aSOTRs) who received three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine experience high seroconversion rates and antibody persistence for up to 3 months. Long-term antibody durability beyond this timeframe following three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine remains unknown. We describe antibody responses 6 months following the third vaccine dose (D3) of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination among aSOTRs. METHODS: Participants in a multi-center, observational cohort who received the third dose of the vaccine were analyzed for antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2-S positive: ≥0.8, maximum: >2500 U/mL). Samples were collected at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-D3. Participants were surveyed at each timepoint and at 12-months post-D3. RESULTS: All 34 participants had positive anti-RBD antibody titers 6 months post-D3. Variations in titers occurred between 3 and 6 months post-D3, with 8/28 (29%) having decreased antibody levels at 6 months compared to 3 months and 2/28 (7%) reporting increased titers at 6 months. The remaining 18/28 (64%) had unchanged antibody titers compared to 3-month post-D3 levels. A total of 4/34 (12%) reported breakthrough infection within 6 months and 3/32 (9%) reported infection after 6-12 months following the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that antibody durability persists up to 6 months following three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in aSOTRs. Demography and transplant characteristics did not differ for those who experienced antibody weaning. Breakthrough infections did occur, reflecting immune-evasive nature of novel variants such as Omicron.

Omicron Infections in Vaccinated Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron period was frequent amongst a cohort of vaccinated pediatric solid organ transplant recipients (pSOTRs) despite robust anti-receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody response, suggesting poor neutralizing capacity against Omicron subvariants. Breakthrough infections among pSOTRs were overall limited in severity.

Characterizing the risk of human leukocyte antigen-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation in older recipients.

Older compatible living donor kidney transplant (CLDKT) recipients have higher mortality and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) compared to younger recipients. These risks may be amplified in older incompatible living donor kidney transplant (ILDKT) recipients who undergo desensitization and intense immunosuppression. In a 25-center cohort of ILDKT recipients transplanted between September 24, 1997, and December 15, 2016, we compared mortality, DCGF, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and length of stay (LOS) between 234 older (age ≥60 years) and 1172 younger (age 18-59 years) recipients. To investigate whether the impact of age was different for ILDKT recipients compared to 17 542 CLDKT recipients, we used an interaction term to determine whether the relationship between posttransplant outcomes and transplant type (ILDKT vs CLDKT) was modified by age. Overall, older recipients had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 1.632.072.65, P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: 0.360.530.77, P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: 0.390.540.74, P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: 0.461.032.33, P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: 0.880.981.10, P = 0.8) compared to younger recipients. The impact of age on mortality (interaction P = .052), DCGF (interaction P = .7), AR interaction P = .2), DGF (interaction P = .9), and LOS (interaction P = .5) were similar in ILDKT and CLDKT recipients. Age alone should not preclude eligibility for ILDKT.

Transplant Candidate Outcomes After Declining a DCD Liver in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the organ shortage, donation after circulatory death (DCD) provides an opportunity to expand the donor pool. Although deceased-donor liver transplantation from DCD donors has expanded, DCD livers continue to be discarded at elevated rates; the use of DCD livers from older donors, or donors with comorbidities, is controversial. METHODS: Using US registry data from 2009 to 2020, we identified 1564 candidates on whose behalf a DCD liver offer was accepted ("acceptors") and 16 981 candidates on whose behalf the same DCD offers were declined ("decliners"). We characterized outcomes of decliners using a competing risk framework and estimated the survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) of accepting DCD livers using Cox regression. RESULTS: Within 10 y of DCD offer decline, 50.9% of candidates died or were removed from the waitlist before transplantation with any type of allograft. DCD acceptors had lower mortality compared with decliners at 10 y postoffer (35.4% versus 48.9%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for candidate covariates, DCD offer acceptance was associated with a 46% reduction in mortality (0.54 [0.49-0.61]). Acceptors of older (age ≥50), obese (body mass index ≥30), hypertensive, nonlocal, diabetic, and increased risk DCD livers had 44% (0.56 [0.42-0.73]), 40% (0.60 [0.49-0.74]), 48% (0.52 [0.41-0.66]), 46% (0.54 [0.45-0.65]), 32% (0.68 [0.43-1.05]), and 45% (0.55 [0.42-0.72]) lower mortality risk compared with DCD decliners, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DCD offer acceptance is associated with considerable long-term survival benefits for liver transplant candidates, even with older DCD donors or donors with comorbidities. Increased recovery and utilization of DCD livers should be encouraged.

Cancer Risk Following HLA-Incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) require desensitization to facilitate transplantation, and this substantial upfront immunosuppression may result in serious complications, including cancer. Methods: To characterize cancer risk in ILDKTr, we evaluated 858 ILDKTr and 12 239 compatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (CLDKTr) from a multicenter cohort with linkage to the US transplant registry and 33 cancer registries (1997-2016). Cancer incidence was compared using weighted Cox regression. Results: Among ILDKTr, the median follow-up time was 6.7 y (maximum 16.1 y) for invasive cancers (ascertained via cancer registry linkage) and 5.0 y (maximum 16.1 y) for basal and squamous cell carcinomas (ascertained via the transplant registry and censored for transplant center loss to follow-up). Invasive cancers occurred in 53 ILDKTr (6.2%) and 811 CLDKTr (6.6%; weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.35). Basal and squamous cell carcinomas occurred in 41 ILDKTr (4.8%) and 737 CLDKTr (6.0%) (wHR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). Cancer risk did not vary according to donor-specific antibody strength, and in an exploratory analysis, was similar between CLDKTr and ILDKTr for most cancer types and according to cancer stage, except ILDKTr had a suggestively increased risk of colorectal cancer (wHR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.23-8.71); however, this elevation was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the risk of cancer is not increased for ILDKTr compared with CLDKTr. The possible elevation in colorectal cancer risk is unexplained and might suggest a need for tailored screening or prevention.

Comprehensive quality initiative leads to immediate postoperative extubation following liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Immediate postoperative extubation (IPE) can reduce perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS), however it is performed variably after liver transplant across institutions and has historically excluded high-risk recipients from consideration. In late 2012, we planned and implemented a single academic institution structured quality improvement (QI) initiative to standardize perioperative care of liver transplant recipients without exceptions. We hypothesized that such an approach would lead to a sustained increase in IPE after primary (PAC) and delayed abdominal closure (DAC). METHODS: We retrospectively studied 591 patients from 2013 to 2018 who underwent liver transplant after initiative implementation. We evaluated trends in incidence of IPE versus delayed extubation (DE), and reintubation, LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 476/591 (80.5%) recipients underwent PAC (278 IPE, 198 DE) and 115/591 (19.5%) experienced DAC (39 IPE, 76 DE). When comparing data from 2013 to data from 2018, the incidence of IPE increased from 9/67 (13.4%) to 78/90 (86.7%) after PAC and from 1/12 (8.3%) to 16/23 (69.6%) after DAC. For the same years, the incidence of IPE after PAC for recipients with MELD scores ≥30 increased from 0/19 (0%) to 12/17 (70.6%), for recipients who underwent simultaneous liver-kidney transplant increased from 1/8 (12.5%) to 4/5 (80.0%), and for recipients who received massive transfusion (>10 units of packed red blood cells) increased from 0/17 (0%) to 10/13 (76.9%). Reintubation for respiratory considerations <48 h after IPE occurred in 3/278 (1.1%) after PAC and 1/39 (2.6%) after DAC. IPE was associated with decreased intensive care unit (HR of discharge: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.58, 2.33; P < 0.001) and hospital LOS (HR of discharge: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.76; P < 0.001) but demonstrated no association with mortality. CONCLUSION: A structured QI initiative led to sustained high rates of IPE and reduced LOS in all liver transplant recipients, including those classified as high risk.

Impact of Seasonal Coronavirus Antibodies on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Responses in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Antibody responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination are reduced in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). We report that increased levels of preexisting antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses are associated with decreased antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in SOTRs, supporting that antigenic imprinting modulates vaccine responses in SOTRs.

Patient Perspectives on the Use of Frailty, Cognitive Function, and Age in Kidney Transplant Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The allocation of scarce deceased donor kidneys is a complex process. Transplant providers are increasingly relying on constructs such as frailty and cognitive function to guide kidney transplant (KT) candidate selection. Patient views of the ethical issues surrounding the use of such constructs are unclear. We sought to assess KT candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the use of frailty and cognitive function to guide waitlist selection. METHODS: KT candidates were randomly recruited from an ongoing single-center cohort study of frailty and cognitive function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was performed. Inductively derived themes were mapped onto bioethics principles. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were conducted (65% contact rate, 100% participation rate) (60% male; 70% White). With respect to the use of frailty and cognitive function in waitlisting decisions, four themes emerged in which participants: (1) valued maximizing a scarce resource (utility); (2) prioritized equal access to all patients (equity); (3) appreciated a proportional approach to the use of equity and utility (precautionary utility); and (4) sought to weigh utility- and equity-based concerns regarding social support. While some participants believed frailty and cognitive function were useful constructs to maximize utility, others believed their use would jeopardize equity. Patients were uncomfortable with using single factors such as frailty or cognitive impairment to deny someone access to transplantation; participants instead encouraged using the constructs to identify opportunities for intervention to improve frailty and cognitive function prior to KT. CONCLUSIONS: KT candidates' values mirrored the current allocation strategy, seeking to balance equity and utility in a just manner, albeit with conflicting viewpoints on the appropriate use of frailty and cognitive impairment in waitlisting decisions.

Predicting a Positive Antibody Response After 2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines in Transplant Recipients: A Machine Learning Approach With External Validation.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are less likely to mount an antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Understanding risk factors for impaired vaccine response can guide strategies for antibody testing and additional vaccine dose recommendations. METHODS: Using a nationwide observational cohort of 1031 SOTRs, we created a machine learning model to explore, identify, rank, and quantify the association of 19 clinical factors with antibody responses to 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. External validation of the model was performed using a cohort of 512 SOTRs at Houston Methodist Hospital. RESULTS: Mycophenolate mofetil use, a shorter time since transplant, and older age were the strongest predictors of a negative antibody response, collectively contributing to 76% of the model's prediction performance. Other clinical factors, including transplanted organ, vaccine type (mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2), sex, race, and other immunosuppressants, showed comparatively weaker associations with an antibody response. This model showed moderate prediction performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 in our cohort and 0.67 in the external validation cohort. An online calculator based on our prediction model is available at http://transplantmodels.com/covidvaccine/ . CONCLUSIONS: Our machine learning model helps understand which transplant patients need closer follow-up and additional doses of vaccine to achieve protective immunity. The online calculator based on this model can be incorporated into transplant providers' practice to facilitate patient-centric, precision risk stratification and inform vaccination strategies among SOTRs.

Heterologous Ad.26.COV2.S versus homologous BNT162b2/mRNA-1273 as a third dose in solid organ transplant recipients seronegative after two-dose mRNA vaccination.

Heterologous vaccination ("mixing platforms") for the third (D3) dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a potential strategy to improve antibody responses in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), but data are mixed regarding potential differential immunogenicity. We assessed for differences in immunogenicity and tolerability of homologous (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; D3-mRNA) versus heterologous (Ad.26.COV2.S; D3-JJ) D3 among 377 SARS-CoV-2-infection naïve SOTRs who remained seronegative after two mRNA vaccines. We measured anti-spike titers and used weighted Poisson regression to evaluate seroconversion and development of high-titers, comparing D3-JJ to D3-mRNA, at 1-, 3-, and 6 month post-D3. 1-month post-D3, seroconversion (63% vs. 52%, p = .3) and development of high-titers (29% vs. 25%, p = .7) were comparable between D3-JJ and D3-mRNA recipients. 3 month post-D3, D3-JJ recipients were 1.4-fold more likely to seroconvert (80% vs. 57%, weighted incidence-rate-ratio: wIRR = 1.10 1.401.77 , p = .006) but not more likely to develop high-titers (27% vs. 22%, wIRR = 0.44 0.921.93 , p = .8). 6 month post-D3, D3-JJ recipients were 1.41-fold more likely to seroconvert (88% vs. 59%, wIRR = 1.04 1.411.93 , p = .029) and 2.63-fold more likely to develop high-titers (59% vs. 21%, wIRR = 1.38 2.635.00 , p = .003). There was no differential signal in alloimmune events or reactogenicity between platforms. SOTRs without antibody response after two mRNA vaccines may derive benefit from heterologous Ad.26.COV2.S D3.