Medium‐term outcome of fundoplication after lung transplantation

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in lung transplant recipients has gained increasing attention as a factor in allograft failure. There are few data on the impact of fundoplication on survival or lung function, and less on its effect on symptoms or quality of life. Patients undergoing fundoplication following lung transplantation from 1999 to 2005 were included in the study. Patient satisfaction, changes in GERD symptoms, and the presence of known side effects were assessed. The effect on lung function, body mass index, and rate of progression to the bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) were recorded. Twenty‐one patients (13 males), in whom reflux was confirmed on objective criteria, were included, with a mean age of 43 years (range 20–68). Time between transplantation and fundoplication was 768 days (range 145–1524). The indication for fundoplication was suspected microaspiration in 13 and symptoms of GERD in 8. There was one perioperative death, at day 17. There were three other late deaths. Fundoplication did not appear to affect progression to BOS stage 1, although it may have slowed progression to stage 2 and 3. Forced expiratory volume‐1% predicted was 72.9 (20.9), 6 months prior to fundoplication and 70.4 (26.8), six months post‐fundoplication, P= 0.33. Body mass index decreased significantly in the 6 months following fundoplication (23 kg/m² vs. 21 kg/m², P= 0.05). Patients were satisfied with the outcome of the fundoplication (mean satisfaction score 8.8 out of 10). Prevalence of GERD symptoms decreased significantly following surgery (11 of 14 vs. 4 of 17, P= 0.002). Fundoplication does not reverse any decline in lung function when performed at a late stage post‐lung transplantation in patients with objectively confirmed GERD. It may, however, slow progression to the more advanced stages of BOS. Reflux symptoms are well controlled and patients are highly satisfied. Whether performing fundoplication early post‐lung transplant in selected patients can prevent BOS and improve long‐term outcomes requires formal evaluation.     

Human papillomavirus‐related high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the esophagus,skin, and cervix in an adolescent lung transplant recipient: a case report and literature review

High‐risk (carcinogenic) genotype human papillomavirus (HPV) infections can be associated with significant morbidity in the immunocompromised solid organ transplant (SOT) recipient. Immunosuppression‐associated persistent infection can predispose to the development of rapidly progressive high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in this population. We present a case report of an adolescent bilateral lung transplant recipient who developed HSIL of the esophagus, cervix, and skin secondary to HPV. This review highlights the unique developmental needs of the sexually active adolescent SOT recipient and reviews guidelines for HPV‐related screening and education of this population.     

Review: immunosuppression for the lung transplant patient

Lung transplantation (LTx) has evolved significantly since its inception and the improvement in LTx outcomes over the last three decades has predominantly been driven by advances in immunosuppression management. Despite the lack of new classes of immunosuppression medications, immunosuppressive strategies have evolved significantly from a universal method to a more targeted approach, reflecting a greater understanding of the need for individualized therapy and careful consideration of all factors that are influenced by immunosuppression choice. This has become increasingly important as the demographics of lung transplant recipients have changed over time, with older and more medically complex candidates being accepted and undergoing LTx. Furthermore, improved survival post lung transplant has translated into more immunosuppression related comorbidities long-term, predominantly chronic kidney disease (CKD) and malignancy, which has required further nuanced management approaches. This review provides an update on current traditional lung transplant immunosuppression strategies, with modifications based on pre-existing recipient factors and comorbidities, peri-operative challenges and long term complications, balanced against the perpetual challenge of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). As we continue to explore and understand the complexity of LTx immunology and the interplay of different factors, immunosuppression strategies will require ongoing critical evaluation and personalization in order to continue to improve lung transplant outcomes.     

Successful treatment of donor‐derived hepatitis C infection in a lung transplant recipient

Data are limited regarding the use of direct‐acting antivirals for treatment of hepatitis C infection post lung transplant, especially in a donor‐derived infection. We present a case of a lung transplant recipient with donor‐derived hepatitis C that was successfully treated with a 12‐week regimen of simeprevir and sofosbuvir. This case reiterates the importance of screening recipients of increased‐risk donor organs for disease transmission and the value of early therapy.     

Ribavirin and cellular ribavirin‐triphosphate concentrations in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in two lung transplant patients with respiratory syncytial virus

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in the lung transplant population. Oral and aerosolized ribavirin may improve outcomes in lung transplant patients with RSV; however, data relating ribavirin concentrations in plasma and intracellular ribavirin triphosphate (iRTP) concentrations in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid cells with efficacy and safety are lacking. We describe ribavirin and iRTP concentrations within various compartments in two adult lung transplant recipients with RSV who were sampled throughout successful treatment courses with oral and inhaled ribavirin. In patient 1, iRTP BAL concentrations decreased by 45% over 3 days after changing inhaled ribavirin to oral (6.32 to 3.43 pmol/10⁶ cells). In patient 2, iRTP BAL concentrations were 103 pmol/10⁶ cells after 5 days of oral followed by 5 days of inhaled ribavirin. Further study is needed to describe ribavirin pharmacokinetics in the respiratory compartment to inform clinical use of ribavirin for respiratory viruses.     

Visceral leishmaniasis in a lung transplant recipient: usefulness of highly sensitive real‐time polymerase chain reaction for preemptive diagnosis

We report the case of a lung transplant recipient in whom the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) was made by detection of parasites in a peripheral blood smear when the parasite load already reached 8.9 × 10³ parasites/mL. We demonstrated that the VL diagnosis could have been done months before the development of symptoms by the use of Leishmania‐specific real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), suggesting the role of preemptive PCR‐based diagnosis in transplant recipients at risk for VL.     

Variation in antifungal prophylaxis strategies in lung transplantation

We conducted a survey of 50 lung transplant centers across the world to evaluate the variation in antifungal prophylaxis practices. These 50 centers performed 63% of the world's lung transplants reported in 2001. Eighty-six percent (43/50) of the centers responded to the survey. Sixty-nine percent (30/43) of centers used universal antifungal prophylaxis. Aerosolized amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBd) alone or in combination with itraconazole was used at 56% (24/43) of centers. The median duration of prophylaxis with aerosolized AmBd and itraconazole was 30 and 90 days, respectively. Seventy-four percent of the centers surveyed agreed to participate in future research prophylaxis protocols, which they felt should include both diagnostic and therapeutic arms. Our survey is the first documentation of the international variation in antifungal prophylactic strategies in lung transplant recipients, and underscores the need for multicenter, randomized trials of antifungal prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients.