Results of Two Cases of Pig-to-Human Kidney Xenotransplantation.

BACKGROUND: Xenografts from genetically modified pigs have become one of the most promising solutions to the dearth of human organs available for transplantation. The challenge in this model has been hyperacute rejection. To avoid this, pigs have been bred with a knockout of the alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase gene and with subcapsular autologous thymic tissue. METHODS: We transplanted kidneys from these genetically modified pigs into two brain-dead human recipients whose circulatory and respiratory activity was maintained on ventilators for the duration of the study. We performed serial biopsies and monitored the urine output and kinetic estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to assess renal function and xenograft rejection. RESULTS: The xenograft in both recipients began to make urine within moments after reperfusion. Over the 54-hour study, the kinetic eGFR increased from 23 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area before transplantation to 62 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 after transplantation in Recipient 1 and from 55 to 109 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in Recipient 2. In both recipients, the creatinine level, which had been at a steady state, decreased after implantation of the xenograft, from 1.97 to 0.82 mg per deciliter in Recipient 1 and from 1.10 to 0.57 mg per deciliter in Recipient 2. The transplanted kidneys remained pink and well-perfused, continuing to make urine throughout the study. Biopsies that were performed at 6, 24, 48, and 54 hours revealed no signs of hyperacute or antibody-mediated rejection. Hourly urine output with the xenograft was more than double the output with the native kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically modified kidney xenografts from pigs remained viable and functioning in brain-dead human recipients for 54 hours, without signs of hyperacute rejection. (Funded by Lung Biotechnology.).

A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo Controlled Trial of Clazakizumab for the Treatment of COVID-19 Pneumonia With Hyperinflammation.

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.

Clinical and Financial Implications of 2 Treatment Strategies for Donor-derived Hepatitis C Infections.

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.