Vaccination of solid organ transplant candidates and recipients: Guidelines from the American society of transplantation infectious diseases community of practice

These updated guidelines of the AST IDCOP review vaccination of solid organ transplant candidates and recipients. General principles of vaccination as well as the use of specific vaccines in this population are discussed. Vaccination should be reviewed in the pre‐transplant setting and appropriate vaccines updated. Both inactivated and live vaccines can be given pre‐transplant. The timing of vaccination post‐transplant should be taken into account. In the post‐transplant setting, inactivated vaccines can be administered starting at 3 months post‐transplant with the exception of influenza which can be given as early as one month. Inactivated vaccines can be safely administered post‐transplant. There is accumulating data that live‐attenuated vaccines can also be given to select post‐transplant patients. Close contacts of transplant patients can receive most routine live vaccines. Specific vaccines including pneumococcal, influenza, hepatitis B, HPV, and meningococcal vaccines are discussed. Newer vaccines for seasonal influenza vaccine and herpes zoster are highlighted. Live‐attenuated vaccines such as measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella are also discussed. Emerging data on live‐attenuated vaccines post‐transplant are highlighted.     

Arenaviruses and West Nile Virus in solid organ transplant recipients: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation review the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of infection due to Arenaviruses and West Nile Virus (WNV) in the pre‐ and post‐transplant period. Arenaviruses and WNV have been identified as causes of both donor‐derived and post‐transplant infection. Most data related to these infections have been published in case reports and case series. Transplant recipients may become infected with Arenaviruses if they, or their donors, are exposed to wild rodents or infected pet rodents. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus is the most commonly recognized Arenavirus among transplant recipients and should be considered when transplant recipients present with fever, hepatitis, meningitis/encephalitis, and/or multisystem organ failure. WNV is a mosquito‐borne virus, and as such, its incidence varies yearly depending on environmental conditions. WNV in transplant recipients typically presents with fever, myalgias, and rash; approximately one in 40 develop neuroinvasive disease. Due to its morbidity, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently mandated that transplant centers screen living donors for WNV infection in endemic areas. Little is known about the optimal treatment of Arenaviruses or WNV; reduction in immunosuppression and supportive care are the mainstays of management at present.     

Donor‐derived infections: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation will review the current state of the art of donor‐derived infections. Specifically, the guideline will summarize standardized definitions and approaches to defining imputability, updated data on the epidemiology of donor‐derived infections, and approaches to risk mitigation against transmission of infections. This update will additionally provide guidance on the use of HIV+ donors in HIV+ recipients, the use of HCV‐viremic donors in non‐viremic recipients, donors with endemic infections, and donors with bacteremia, meningitis, and encephalitis. Lastly, the guidance will summarize an approach to recipients with a suspected donor‐derived infection.     

Hepatitis B and C virus infections transmitted through organ transplantation investigated by CDC,United States, 2014‐2017

We evaluated clinical outcomes among organ recipients with donor‐derived hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections investigated by CDC from 2014 to 2017 in the United States. We characterized new HBV infections in organ recipients if donors tested negative for total anti‐HBc, HBsAg and HBV DNA, and new recipient HCV infections if donors tested negative for anti‐HCV and HCV RNA. Donor risk behaviors were abstracted from next‐of‐kin interviews and medical records. During 2014‐2017, seven new recipient HBV infections associated with seven donors were identified; six (86%) recipients survived. At last follow‐up, all survivors had functioning grafts and five (83%) had started antiviral therapy. Twenty new recipient HCV infections associated with nine donors were identified; 19 (95%) recipients survived. At last follow‐up, 18 (95%) survivors had functioning grafts and 14 (74%) had started antiviral treatment. Combining donor next‐of kin interviews and medical records, 11/16 (69%) donors had evidence of injection drug use and all met Public Health Service increased risk donor (IRD) criteria. IRD designation led to early diagnosis of recipient infection, and prompt implementation of therapy, likely reducing the risk of graft failure, liver disease, and death.     

Donor‐Derived Strongyloides stercoralis Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients in the United States, 2009–2013

Infection with Strongyloides stercoralis is typically asymptomatic in immunocompetent hosts, despite chronic infection. In contrast, immunocompromised hosts such as solid organ transplant recipients are at risk for hyperinfection syndrome and/or disseminated disease, frequently resulting in fatal outcomes. Infection in these recipients may result from reactivation of latent infection or infection through transmission from an infected donor. We describe the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's experience with seven clusters of donor‐derived infection from 2009 to 2013. Six of the seven (86%) donors were born in Latin America; donor screening was not performed prior to organ transplantation in any of these investigations. Eleven of the 20 (55%) organ recipients were symptomatic, two of whom died from complications of strongyloidiasis. We also describe the New York Organ Donor Network (NYODN) experience with targeted donor screening from 2010 to 2013. Of the 233 consented potential donors tested, 10 tested positive for Strongyloides antibody; and 18 organs were transplanted. The majority (86%) of the donors were born in Central or South America. Fourteen recipients received prophylaxis after transplantation; no recipients developed strongyloidiasis. The NYODN experience provides evidence that when targeted donor screening is performed prior to transplantation, donor‐derived infection can be averted in recipients.     

Serologic follow-up of solid organ transplant recipients who received organs from donors with reactive syphilis tests: A retrospective cohort study

The increased procurement of organs from donors with risk factors for blood-borne diseases and the expanding syphilis epidemic have resulted in a growing number of organs transplanted from donors with reactive syphilis serology in our center. Based on guidelines, recipients typically receive therapy shortly after the transplant, but data on outcomes are limited. The primary objective of this study was to determine syphilis seroconversion rates at three months post-transplant in recipients of solid organs procured from donors with reactive syphilis serology. Organ donors and recipients were tested for syphilis antibody; positive results were confirmed with Treponema pallidum Particle Agglutination (TPPA). Eleven donors with reactive syphilis antibody donated organs to 25 syphilis negative recipients. Three recipients seroconverted at post-transplant month 3. All of them had received therapy shortly after transplant. TPPA was negative in all 3. Despite post-transplant treatment, 3 of 25 (12%) syphilis negative recipients of organs from syphilis positive donors seroconverted at 3 months. All remained TPPA negative possibly reflecting passive antibody transfer or differing test sensitivity to low level treponemal antibodies. Further studies are needed to assess optimal syphilis transmission prevention strategies and follow up recipient testing in organ transplantation.     

An Assessment of HIV‐Infected Patients Dying in Care for Deceased Organ Donation in a United States Urban Center

Organ transplantation is an acceptable option for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐infected patients with end‐stage kidney or liver disease. With worse outcomes on the waitlist, HIV‐infected patients may actually be disproportionately affected by the organ shortage in the United States. One potential solution is the use of HIV‐infected deceased donors (HIVDD), recently legalized by the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. This is the first analysis of patient‐specific data from potential HIVDD, retrospectively examining charts of HIV‐infected patients dying in care at six HIV clinics in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014. Our data suggest that there are four to five potential HIVDD dying in Philadelphia annually who might yield two to three kidneys and three to five livers for transplant. Extrapolated nationally, this would approximate 356 potential HIVDD yielding 192 kidneys and 247 livers annually. However, several donor risk indices raise concerns about the quality of kidneys that could be recovered from HIVDD as a result of older donor age and comorbidities. On the other hand, livers from these potential HIVDD are of similar quality to HIV‐negative donors dying locally, although there is a high prevalence of positive hepatitis C antibody.     

Solid Organ Transplantation From Hepatitis B Virus–Positive Donors: Consensus Guidelines for Recipient Management

Use of organs from donors testing positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV) may safely expand the donor pool. The American Society of Transplantation convened a multidisciplinary expert panel that reviewed the existing literature and developed consensus recommendations for recipient management following the use of organs from HBV positive donors. Transmission risk is highest with liver donors and significantly lower with non‐liver (kidney and thoracic) donors. Antiviral prophylaxis significantly reduces the rate of transmission to liver recipients from isolated HBV core antibody positive (anti‐HBc+) donors. Organs from anti‐HBc+ donors should be considered for all adult transplant candidates after an individualized assessment of the risks and benefits and appropriate patient consent. Indefinite antiviral prophylaxis is recommended in liver recipients with no immunity or vaccine immunity but not in liver recipients with natural immunity. Antiviral prophylaxis may be considered for up to 1 year in susceptible non‐liver recipients but is not recommended in immune non‐liver recipients. Although no longer the treatment of choice in patients with chronic HBV, lamivudine remains the most cost‐effective choice for prophylaxis in this setting. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin is not recommended.     

Human parvovirus B19 in solid organ transplantation: Guidelines from the American society of transplantation infectious diseases community of practice

Clinical manifestations of human parvovirus B19 infection can vary widely and may be atypical in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, disease is apparent when there is destruction of erythrocyte progenitor cells leading to severe acute or chronic anemia with lack of an appropriate reticulocyte response in the setting of active parvovirus B19 infection. Serology may not reliably establish the diagnosis. High‐level viremia is more likely to be associated with symptomatic disease. Conversely, ongoing DNAemia after infection may not be clinically significant, if detected at low levels. Despite lack of robust data, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is frequently used for the treatment of SOT recipients with symptomatic parvovirus B19 infection. Although the optimal dosage and duration of IVIG is not known, most patients receive a total of 2 g/kg over a period of 2‐5 days. A daily dose of 1 g/kg or more seems to be associated with higher incidence of toxicity. Application of standard and droplet isolation precautions remains the cornerstone for preventing human parvovirus B19 transmission. Additional research is needed to assess the efficacy of current and novel therapies and to develop a safe and effective parvovirus B19 vaccine.     

Clinical and virologic outcomes in high‐risk adult Epstein‐Barr virus mismatched organ transplant recipients

Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) D+/R? organ transplant recipients are a high‐risk group for developing post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). Little data are available for prevention in the adult EBV mismatched population. We conducted a retrospective study of EBV D+/R? organ transplants performed during 2002‐2014. Of the 153 patients identified, 82.4% patients received antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir for a median of 4.5 months (range: 0.8‐22 months) and 36.6% underwent viral load monitoring in the first post‐transplant year. EBV viremia developed in 67.2% monitored patients. In viremic patients, immunosuppression was reduced in 20/37(54.1%) in response to viremia and 17/37 (45.9%) received therapeutic dose valganciclovir. In patients with EBV viremia who received valganciclovir and/or had a reduction in immunosuppression and had sufficient viral load time points (n=31), 28 (90.3%) had a significant decline in viral load at day 14 (median log decline 0.49 (0.24‐0.64), P<.001) and at day 30 (0.87 (0.52‐1.21), P<.001). PTLD developed in 27 (15%) patients (biopsy proven=25, possible=2) at median 8 months (range: 2.4‐130) post‐transplant with the majority (81.5%) within the first year. In multivariate analysis, viral load monitoring and use of mycophenolate were associated with a lower incidence of PTLD. Antiviral prophylaxis was not associated with a lower risk of PTLD, but viral load monitoring and use of mycophenolate mofetil were protective.     

First experience of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections in solid organ transplant recipients in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study

Immunocompromised patients may be at increased risk for complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. However, comprehensive data of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are still lacking. We performed a multicenter nationwide observational study within the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS) to describe the epidemiology, clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes of the first microbiologically documented SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among SOT recipients. Overall, 21 patients were included with a median age of 56 years (10 kidney, 5 liver, 1 pancreas, 1 lung, 1 heart and 3 combined transplantations). The most common presenting symptoms were fever (76%), dry cough (57%), nausea (33%), and diarrhea (33%). Ninety‐five percent and 24% of patients required hospital and ICU admission, respectively, and 19% were intubated. After a median of 33 days of follow‐up, 16 patients were discharged, 3 were still hospitalized and 2 patients died. These data suggest that clinical manifestations of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in middle‐aged SOT recipients appear to be similar to the general population without an apparent higher rate of complications. These results need to be confirmed in larger cohorts.     

Donor evaluation in the era of HIV‐positive organ transplantation: The importance of the infectious diseases specialist

A 61‐year‐old female with well‐controlled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and end‐stage renal disease was on the kidney transplant waitlist awaiting an organ offer, including from HIV‐positive donors through the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. We present three different scenarios where HIV‐positive donor offers were evaluated for this one recipient, discuss the donor evaluation process, explain where the infectious diseases provider fits in this scheme, and describe the challenges encountered by organ procurement organizations. This is the first case under the HOPE Act at our center where discovery of an HIV‐specific issue led to a turndown of an organ offer.