Ultra‐short duration direct acting antiviral prophylaxis to prevent virus transmission from hepatitis C viremic donors to hepatitis C negative kidney transplant recipients

We conducted an adaptive design single‐center pilot trial between October 2017 and November 2018 to determine the safety and efficacy of ultra‐short‐term perioperative pangenotypic direct acting antiviral (DAA) prophylaxis for deceased hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐nucleic acid test (NAT) positive donors to HCV negative kidney recipients (D+/R?). In Group 1, 10 patients received one dose of SOF/VEL (sofusbuvir/velpatasvir) pretransplant and one dose on posttransplant Day 1. In Group 2A (N = 15) and the posttrial validation (Group 2B; N = 25) phase, patients received two additional SOF/VEL doses (total 4) on Days 2 and 3 posttransplant. Development of posttransplant HCV transmission triggered 12‐week DAA therapy. For available donor samples (N = 27), median donor viral load was 1.37E + 06 IU/mL (genotype [GT]1a: 70%; GT2: 7%; GT3: 23%). Overall viral transmission rate was 12% (6/50; Group 1:30% [3/10]; Group 2A:13% [2/15]; Group 2B:4% [1/25]). For the 6 viremic patients, 5 (83%) achieved sustained virologic response (3 with first‐line DAA therapy; and two after retreatment with second‐line DAA). At a median follow‐up of 8 months posttransplant, overall patient and allograft survivals were 98%, respectively. The 4‐day strategy reduced viral transmission to 7.5% (3/40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8%‐20.5%) and could result in avoidance of prolonged posttransplant DAA therapy for most D+/R ? transplants.     

Pancreas transplantation from hepatitis C viremic donors to uninfected recipients

Despite utilization of hepatitis C viremic organs for hepatitis C naïve recipients (HCV D+/R-) in other solid organ transplants, HCV viremic pancreata remain an unexplored source of donor organs. This study reports the first series of HCV D+/R- pancreas transplants. HCV D+/R- had shorter waitlist times compared to HCV D-/R-, waiting a mean of 16 days from listing for HCV-positive organs. HCV D+/R- had a lower match allocation sequence than HCV D-/R-, and this correlated with receipt of organs with a lower Pancreas Donor Risk Index (PDRI) score. All HCV D+/R- had excellent graft function with a mean follow-up of 438 days and had undetectable HCV RNA levels by a mean of 23 days after initiation of HCV-directed therapy. The rates of infectious complications, reoperation, readmission, rejection, and length of stay were not impacted by donor HCV status. A national review of potential ideal pancreas donors found that 37% of ideal HCV-negative pancreas allografts were transplanted, compared to only 5% of ideal HCV-positive pancreas allografts. The results of the current study demonstrate the safety of accepting HCV-positive pancreata for HCV-naïve recipients and advocates for increased utilization of ideal HCV-positive pancreas allografts.     

Immune‐mediated graft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C virus treated with direct‐acting antiviral therapy

Interferon treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after liver transplantation (LT) can result in immune‐mediated graft dysfunction (IGD). The occurrence of, risk factors for, and outcomes of IGD with direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapy have not been reported. We conducted a multicenter study of HCV+LT recipients who did or did not develop DAA‐IGD (1 case: 2 controls—33 vs 66). Among all treated between 2014 and 2016, DAA‐IGD occurred in 3.4% (33/978). IGD occurred only after treatment completion (76.0 [IQR, 47.0;176]). Among those treated, 48% had plasma cell hepatitis, 36% acute cellular rejection, 6% chronic rejection, and 9% combined findings. Median time to liver enzyme resolution was 77.5 days (IQR, 31.5;126). After diagnosis, hospitalizations, steroid‐induced hyperglycemia, and infection occurred in a higher percentage of cases vs controls (33% vs 7.5%, 21% vs 1.5%, 9% vs 0%; all P < .05). Only one IGD patient died and none required retransplant. A multivariate regression analysis found that liver enzyme elevations during and soon after DAA therapy completion correlated with subsequent IGD. In conclusion, while DAA‐IGD is uncommon, liver enzyme elevations during or after DAA therapy may be a sign of impending IGD. These indicators should guide clinicians to diagnose and treat IGD early before the more deleterious later clinical presentation.     

Strategies to halt 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) spread for organ transplantation programs at the Sichuan Academy of Medical Science and Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital,China

During the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) outbreak in China (from January 24 to March 11, 2020), our center performed 16 organ transplants (10 kidney, 4 liver, and 2 lung transplants) harvested from deceased donors. Regarding the strategies to prevent infections of SARS‐CoV‐2, we implemented specific measures for the donor and recipient management, as well as prevention of hospital‐acquired infections. All 16 organ recipients had a favorable outcome without SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Our approaches aiming to interrupt the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 within the transplantation wards were successful, and allowed us to maintain the transplantation program for deceased liver, kidney, and lung organ recipients.     

Direct‐acting antivirals are effective and safe in HCV/HIV‐coinfected liver transplant recipients who experience recurrence of hepatitis C: A prospective nationwide cohort study

Direct‐acting antivirals have proved to be highly efficacious and safe in monoinfected liver transplant (LT) recipients who experience recurrence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, there is a lack of data on effectiveness and tolerability of these regimens in HCV/HIV‐coinfected patients who experience recurrence of HCV infection after LT. In this prospective, multicenter cohort study, the outcomes of 47 HCV/HIV‐coinfected LT patients who received DAA therapy (with or without ribavirin [RBV]) were compared with those of a matched cohort of 148 HCV‐monoinfected LT recipients who received similar treatment. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. HCV/HIV‐coinfected patients had a median (IQR) CD4 T‐cell count of 366 (256‐467) cells/µL. HIV‐RNA was <50 copies/mL in 96% of patients. The DAA regimens administered were SOF + LDV ± RBV (34%), SOF + SMV ± RBV (31%), SOF + DCV ± RBV (27%), SMV + DCV ± RBV (5%), and 3D (3%), with no differences between the groups. Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. Rates of SVR (negative serum HCV‐RNA at 12 weeks after the end of treatment) were high and similar for coinfected and monoinfected patients (95% and 94%, respectively; P = .239). Albeit not significant, a trend toward lower SVR rates among patients with advanced fibrosis (P = .093) and genotype 4 (P = .088) was observed. In conclusion, interferon‐free regimens with DAAs for post‐LT recurrence of HCV infection in HIV‐infected individuals were highly effective and well tolerated, with results comparable to those of HCV‐monoinfected patients.     

Short‐term outcomes of deceased donor renal transplants of HCV uninfected recipients from HCV seropositive nonviremic donors and viremic donors in the era of direct‐acting antivirals

The United States opioid use epidemic over the past decade has coincided with an increase in hepatitis C virus  (HCV) positive donors. Using propensity score matching, and the Organ Procurement Transplant Network data files from January 2015 to June 2019, we analyzed the short‐term outcomes of adult deceased donor kidney transplants of HCV uninfected recipients with two distinct groups of HCV positive donors (HCV seropositive, nonviremic n = 352 and viremic n = 196) compared to those performed using HCV uninfected donors (n = 36 934). Compared to the reference group, the transplants performed using HCV seropositive, nonviremic and viremic donors experienced a lower proportion of delayed graft function (35.2 vs 18.9%; P < .001 [HCV seropositive, nonviremic donors] and 36.2 vs 16.8% ;  P < .001[HCV viremic donors]). The recipients of HCV viremic donors had better allograft function at 6 months posttransplant (eGFR [54.1 vs 68.3 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = .004]. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in the overall graft failure risk at 12 months posttransplant by propensity score matched multivariable Cox proportional analysis (HR =  0.60, 95% CI  0.23 to  1.29 [HCV seropositive, nonviremic donors] and HR =  0.85, 95% CI 0.25 to  2.96 [HCV viremic donors]). Further studies are required to determine the long‐term outcomes of these transplants and address unanswered questions regarding the use of HCV viremic donors.     

The road map toward an hepatitis C virus‐free transplant population

Antiviral therapy to eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection improves outcomes in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for advanced chronic HCV with or without hepatocellular carcinoma. Traditionally, antiviral therapy focused on the use of interferon (IFN)‐based regimens, with antiviral treatment initiated in the posttransplant period once recurrent HCV disease with fibrosis in the allograft was identified. The use of IFN‐based therapy was limited in pretransplant patients with advanced liver disease. Earlier intervention, either before transplantation or early after LT, is now feasible with the advent of second‐generation direct‐acting antiviral agents (DAAs) with superior tolerability and efficacy to IFN‐based therapy. These agents have the potential to reduce the number of patients developing HCV‐related complications requiring LT and retransplantation, as well as reducing the demand for donor organs. We discuss the pros and cons of pretransplant, peritransplant, and posttransplant therapy with current DAAs, citing available data from clinical trials and real‐world experience.     

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) non‐viremic recipients with HCV viremic donors

In the context of organ shortage, the opioid epidemic, and effective direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV), more HCV‐infected donor organs may be used for liver transplantation. Current data regarding outcomes after donor‐derived HCV in previously non‐viremic liver transplant recipients are limited. Clinical data for adult liver transplant recipients with donor‐derived HCV infection from March 2017 to January 2018 at our institution were extracted from the medical record. Ten patients received livers from donors known to be infected with HCV based on positive nucleic acid testing. Seven had a prior diagnosis of HCV and were treated before liver transplantation. All recipients were non‐viremic at the time of transplantation. All 10 recipients derived hepatitis C infection from their donor and achieved sustained virologic response at 12 weeks posttreatment with DAA‐based regimens, with a median time from transplant to treatment initiation of 43 days (IQR 20–59). There have been no instances of graft loss or death, with median follow‐up of 380 days (IQR 263–434) posttransplant. Transplantation of HCV‐viremic livers into non‐viremic recipients results in acceptable short‐term outcomes. Such strategies may be used to expand the donor pool and increase access to liver transplantation.     

Cost-effectiveness of using hepatitis C viremic hearts for transplantation into HCV-negative recipients

Outcomes following hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic heart transplantation into HCV-negative recipients with HCV treatment are good. We assessed cost-effectiveness between cohorts of transplant recipients willing and unwilling to receive HCV-viremic hearts. Markov model simulated long-term outcomes among HCV-negative patients on the transplant waitlist. We compared costs (2018 USD) and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) between cohorts willing to accept any heart and those willing to accept only HCV-negative hearts. We assumed 4.9% HCV-viremic donor prevalence. Patients receiving HCV-viremic hearts were treated, assuming $39 600/treatment with 95% cure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared to a $100 000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses included stratification by blood type or region and potential negative consequences of receipt of HCV-viremic hearts. Compared to accepting only HCV-negative hearts, accepting any heart gained 0.14 life-years and 0.11 QALYs, while increasing costs by $9418/patient. Accepting any heart was cost effective (ICER $85 602/QALY gained). Results were robust to all transplant regions and blood types, except type AB. Accepting any heart remained cost effective provided posttransplant mortality and costs among those receiving HCV-viremic hearts were not >7% higher compared to HCV-negative hearts. Willingness to accept HCV-viremic hearts for transplantation into HCV-negative recipients is cost effective and improves clinical outcomes.     

COVID‐19 in solid organ transplant recipients: Initial report from the US epicenter

Solid organ transplant recipients may be at a high risk for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and poor associated outcomes. We herein report our initial experience with solid organ transplant recipients with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City. Baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, antiviral and immunosuppressive management were compared between patients with mild/moderate and severe disease (defined as ICU admission, intubation or death). Ninety patients were analyzed with a median age of 57 years. Forty‐six were kidney recipients, 17 lung, 13 liver, 9 heart, and 5 dual‐organ transplants. The most common presenting symptoms were fever (70%), cough (59%), and dyspnea (43%). Twenty‐two (24%) had mild, 41 (46%) moderate, and 27 (30%) severe disease. Among the 68 hospitalized patients, 12% required non‐rebreather and 35% required intubation. 91% received hydroxychloroquine, 66% azithromycin, 3% remdesivir, 21% tocilizumab, and 24% bolus steroids. Sixteen patients died (18% overall, 24% of hospitalized, 52% of ICU) and 37 (54%) were discharged. In this initial cohort, transplant recipients with COVID‐19 appear to have more severe outcomes, although testing limitations likely led to undercounting of mild/asymptomatic cases. As this outbreak unfolds, COVID‐19 has the potential to severely impact solid organ transplant recipients.     

Multimodal safety assessment of measles‐mumps‐rubella vaccination after pediatric liver transplantation

Live‐attenuated vaccines are currently contraindicated in solid‐organ transplant recipients. However, the risk of vaccine‐preventable infections is lifelong, and can be particularly severe after transplantation. In this prospective interventional national cohort study, 44 pediatric liver transplant recipients with measles IgG antibodies <150 IU/L (below seroprotection threshold) received measles‐mumps‐rubella vaccine (MMR) at a median of 6.3 years posttransplantation (interquartile range, 4.0 to 10.9). A maximum of two additional doses were administered in nonresponders or when seroprotection was lost. Vaccine responses occurred in 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88‐100) of patients. Seroprotection at 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐year follow‐up reached 62% (95% CI, 45‐78), 86% (95% CI, 70‐95), and 89% (95% CI, 67‐99), respectively. All patients responded appropriately to the booster dose(s). Vaccinations were well tolerated and no serious adverse event attributable to vaccination was identified during the 8‐week follow‐up period (or later), using a multimodal approach including standardized telephone interviews, diarized side effect reporting, and monitoring of vaccinal virus shedding. We conclude that live attenuated MMR vaccine can be administered in liver transplant recipients fulfilling specific eligibility criteria (>1 year posttransplantation, low immunosuppression, lymphocyte count ≥0.75 G/L), inducing seroprotection in most subjects. (Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01770119).     

Center‐level trends in utilization of HCV‐exposed donors for HCV‐uninfected kidney and liver transplant recipients in the United States

Several single‐center reports of using HCV‐viremic organs for HCV‐uninfected (HCV‐) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV‐exposed donors for HCV‐ recipients (HCV D+/R?) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015‐December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center‐level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R? KTs and LTs. HCV‐viremic (NAT+) D+/R? KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV‐aviremic (Ab+/NAT‐) D+/R? KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV‐ recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2‐1.6) and 1.6 (0.4‐3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5‐4.0) among HCV D?/R?. HCV‐ recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21‐30) and 25 (21‐32) at transplantation versus 29 (23‐36) among HCV D?/R?. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R? transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R? transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R? transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R? transplantation.     

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.     

Direct‐acting antiviral agent–based regimen for HCV recurrence after combined liver‐kidney transplantation: Results from the ANRS CO23 CUPILT study

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is associated with reduced patient survival following combined liver‐kidney transplantation (LKT). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of second‐generation direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs) in this difficult‐to‐treat population. The ANRS CO23 “Compassionate use of Protease Inhibitors in Viral C Liver Transplantation” (CUPILT) study is a prospective cohort including transplant recipients with recurrent HCV infection treated with DAAs. The present work focused on recipients with recurrent infection following LKT. The study population included 23 patients. All patients received at least one NS5B inhibitor (sofosbuvir) in their antiviral regimen an average of 90 months after LKT. Ninety‐six percent of recipients achieved a sustained virological response (SVR) at week 12 (SVR12). In terms of tolerance, 39% of recipients presented with at least one serious adverse event. None of the patients experienced acute rejection during therapy and there were no deaths during follow‐up. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decreased significantly from baseline to the end of therapy. However, this study did not show that the decline in GFR persisted over time or that it was directly related to DAAs. The DAA‐based regimen is well tolerated with excellent results in terms of efficacy. It will become the gold standard for the treatment of recurrent HCV following LKT.     

Immunosuppressive therapy maintenance in a kidney transplant recipient with SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia: A case report

The role of systemic inflammation is proving crucial in determining unfavorable outcome in SARS‐CoV‐2–infected patients. Limited data are available regarding immunosuppression management in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia. We report a case of a 32‐year‐old KTR who developed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and fully recovered in 15 days while maintaining standard immunosuppressive therapy.     

Transplantation of kidneys from hepatitis C–infected donors to hepatitis C–negative recipients: Single center experience

Our aim was to evaluate the safety of transplanting kidneys from HCV‐infected donors in HCV‐uninfected recipients. Data collected from 53 recipients in a single center, observational study included donor and recipient characteristics, liver and kidney graft function, new infections and de novo donor‐specific antibodies and renal histology. Treatment with a direct‐acting antiviral regimen was initiated when HCV RNA was detected. The mean ± SD age of recipients was 53 ± 11 years, 34% were female, 19% and 79% of recipients were white and African American, respectively. The median and interquartile range (IQR) time between transplant and treatment initiation was 76 (IQR: 68‐88) days. All 53 recipients became viremic (genotype: 1a [N = 34], 1b [N = 1], 2 [N = 3], and 3 [N = 15]). The majority (81%) of recipients did not experience clinically significant increases (>3 times higher than upper limit of the normal value) in aminotransferase levels and their HCV RNA levels were in the 5 to 6 log range. One patient developed fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis with complete resolution. All recipients completed antiviral treatment and 100% were HCV RNA–negative and achieved 12‐week sustained virologic response. The estimated GFRs at end of treatment and 12‐week posttreatment were 67 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² and 67 ± 17 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively. Four recipients developed acute rejection. Kidney transplantation from HCV‐infected donors to HCV‐negative recipients should be considered in all eligible patients.     

Solid organ transplantation programs facing lack of empiric evidence in the COVID‐19 pandemic: A By‐proxy Society Recommendation Consensus approach

The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) pandemic has a drastic impact on national health care systems. Given the overwhelming demand on facility capacity, the impact on all health care sectors has to be addressed. Solid organ transplantation represents a field with a high demand on staff, intensive care units, and follow‐up facilities. The great therapeutic value of organ transplantation has to be weighed against mandatory constraints of health care capacities. In addition, the management of immunosuppressed recipients has to be reassessed during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. In addressing these crucial questions, transplant physicians are facing a total lack of scientific evidence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to offer an approach of consensus‐based guidance, derived from individual information of 22 transplant societies. Key recommendations were extracted and the degree of consensus among different organizations was calculated. A high degree of consensus was found for temporarily suspending nonurgent transplant procedures and living donation programs. Systematic polymerase chain reaction‐based testing of donors and recipients was broadly recommended. Additionally, more specific aspects (eg, screening of surgical explant teams and restricted use of marginal donor organs) were included in our analysis. This study offers a novel approach to informed guidance for health care management when a priori no scientific evidence is available.