BACKGROUND:

Whether trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) prophylaxis prevents nocardiosis in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is controversial.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effect of TMP-SMX in the prevention of nocardiosis after SOT, its dose-response relationship, its effect on preventing disseminated nocardiosis, and the risk of TMP-SMX resistance in case of breakthrough infection.

METHODS:

A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES:

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus up to 19 September 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:

(a) Risk of nocardiosis between SOT recipients with and without TMP-SMX prophylaxis, or (b) sufficient details to determine the rate of TMP-SMX resistance in breakthrough nocardiosis.

PARTICIPANTS:

SOT recipients.

INTERVENTION:

TMP-SMX prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS:

Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Exposure (ROBINS-E) for comparative studies; dedicated tool for non-comparative studies.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS:

For our primary outcome (i.e. to determine the effect of TMP-SMX on the risk of nocardiosis), a one-step mixed-effects regression model was used to estimate the association between the outcome and the exposure. Univariate and multivariable unconditional regression models were used to adjust for the potential confounding effects. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS:

Individual data from three case-control studies were obtained (260 SOT recipients with nocardiosis and 519 uninfected controls). TMP-SMX prophylaxis was independently associated with a significantly decreased risk of nocardiosis (adjusted OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.18-0.52, moderate certainty of evidence). Variables independently associated with an increased risk of nocardiosis were older age, current use of corticosteroids, high calcineurin inhibitor concentration, recent acute rejection, lower lymphocyte count, and heart transplant. Breakthrough infections (66/260, 25%) were generally susceptible to TMP-SMX (pooled proportion 98%, 95% CI 92-100).

CONCLUSIONS:

In SOT recipients, TMP-SMX prophylaxis likely reduces the risk of nocardiosis. Resistance appears uncommon in case of breakthrough infection.

The International Pediatric Transplant Association (IPTA) convened an expert consensus conference to assess current evidence and develop recommendations for various aspects of care relating to post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder after solid organ transplantation in children. In this report from the Prevention Working Group, we reviewed the existing literature regarding immunoprophylaxis and chemoprophylaxis, and pre-emptive strategies. While the group made a strong recommendation for pre-emptive reduction of immunosuppression at the time of EBV DNAemia (low to moderate evidence), no recommendations for use could be made for any prophylactic strategy or alternate pre-emptive strategy, largely due to insufficient or conflicting evidence. Current gaps and future research priorities are highlighted.

The safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is poorly understood, given the paucity of available data in this patient population. There is a theoretical risk of compromising transplanted organ function with CAR T cell therapy; conversely, organ transplantation-related immunosuppression can alter the function of CAR T cells. Given the prevalence of post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, which often can be difficult to treat with conventional chemoimmunotherapy, understanding the risks and benefits of delivering lymphoma-directed CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is of utmost importance. We sought to determine the efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients as well as the associated adverse effects, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and compromised solid organ transplant function. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of adult recipients of solid organ transplant who received CAR T cell therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary outcomes included efficacy, defined as overall response (OR), complete response (CR), progression-free survival, and overall survival, as well as rates of CRS and ICANS. Secondary outcomes included rates of transplanted organ loss, compromised organ function, and alterations to immunosuppressant regimens. After a systematic literature review and 2-reviewer screening process, we identified 10 studies suitable for descriptive analysis and 4 studies suitable for meta-analysis. Among all patients, 69% (24 of 35) achieved a response to CAR T cell therapy, and 52% (18 of 35) achieved a CR. CRS of any grade occurred in 83% (29 of 35), and CRS grade ≥3 occurred in 9% (3 of 35). Sixty percent of the patients (21 of 35) developed ICANS, and 34% (12 of 35) developed ICANS grade ≥3. The incidence of any grade 5 toxicity among all patients was 11% (4 of 35). Fourteen percent of the patients (5 of 35) experienced loss of the transplanted organ. Immunosuppressant therapy was held in 22 patients but eventually restarted in 68% of them (15 of 22). Among the studies included in the meta-analysis, the pooled OR rate was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.2% to 100%; I2 = 71%) and the pooled CR rate was 46% (95% CI, 25.4% to 67.8%; I2 = 29%). The rates of any grade CRS and grade ≥3 CRS were 88% (95% CI, 69% to 99%; I2 = 0%) and 5% (95% CI, 0% to 21%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The rates of any grade ICANS and ICANS grade ≥3 were 54% (95% CI, 9% to 96%; I2 = 68%) and 40% (95% CI, 3% to 85%; I2 = 63%), respectively. The efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is comparable to that in the general population as reported in prior investigational studies, with an acceptable toxicity profile in terms of CRS, ICANS, and transplanted organ compromise. Further studies are needed to determine long-term effects on organ function, sustained response rates, and best practices peri-CAR T infusion period in this patient population.

Although clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been used since the 1970s for a wide variety of clinical tasks including optimization of medication orders, improved documentation, and improved patient adherence, to date, no systematic reviews have been carried out to assess their utilization and efficacy in transplant medicine. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies that utilized a CDSS and assess impact on patient outcomes. A total of 48 articles were identified as meeting the author-derived inclusion criteria, including tools for posttransplant monitoring, pretransplant risk assessment, waiting list management, immunosuppressant management, and interpretation of histopathology. Studies included 15 984 transplant recipients. Tools aimed at helping with transplant patient immunosuppressant management were the most common (19 studies). Thirty-four studies (85%) found an overall clinical benefit following the implementation of a CDSS in clinical practice. Although there are limitations to the existing literature, current evidence suggests that implementing CDSS in transplant clinical settings may improve outcomes for patients. Limited evidence was found using more advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence in transplantation, and future studies should investigate the role of these emerging technologies.

The number of people with immunosuppression is increasing considerably due to their greater survival and the use of new immunosuppressive treatments for various chronic diseases. This is a heterogeneous group of patients in whom vaccination as a preventive measure is one of the basic pillars of their wellbeing, given their increased risk of contracting infections. This consensus, developed jointly by the Sociedad Española de Infectología Pediátrica (Spanish Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases) and the Advisory Committee on Vaccines of the Asociación Española de Pediatría (Spanish Association of Paediatrics), provides guidelines for the development of a personalised vaccination schedule for patients in special situations, including general recommendations and specific recommendations for vaccination of bone marrow and solid organ transplant recipients, children with inborn errors of immunity, oncologic patients, patients with chronic or systemic diseases and immunosuppressed travellers.

INTRODUCTION:

The immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination varied by demographic, including solid organ transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy.

AIM:

This purpose of this study is to assess seropositivity and seroconversion in solid-organ transplant recipients before and after third-dose COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS:

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis performed using PRISMA guidelines. To analyze clinical and cohort studies reporting immunologic response and seroconversion third-dose vaccination, a systematic search was performed using electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), and Clinicaltrials.gov).

RESULT:

There were 18 full-text papers that could be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. After the third vaccination, the pooled rate seropositivity was 67.00% (95% CI 59.511; 74.047, I2 = 93.82%), and the pooled rate seroconversion was 52.51% (95% CI 44.03; 60.91, I2 = 92.15%). The pooled rate of seroconversion after the mRNA-based booster was 52.380% (95% CI 40.988; 63.649, I2 = 94.35%), and after the viral-vector-based booster was 42.478% (95% CI 35.222; 49.900, I2 = 0.00%).

CONCLUSION:

Based on the analysis of immunologic responses and seroconversion findings, the third-dose vaccination of solid organ transplant recipients is an effective method in establishing better immunity against COVID-19.

Solid organ transplant recipients have an increased risk of tuberculosis (TB). Due to the use of immunosuppressants, the incidence of TB among solid organ transplant recipients has been consistently reported to be higher than that among the general population. TB frequently develops within the first year after transplantation when a high level of immunosuppression is maintained. Extrapulmonary TB and disseminated TB account for a substantial proportion of TB among solid organ transplant recipients. Treatment of TB among recipients is complicated by the drug-drug interactions between anti-TB drugs and immunosuppressants. TB is associated with an increased risk of graft rejection, graft failure and mortality. Detection and management of latent TB infection among solid organ transplant candidates and recipients have been recommended. However, strategy to mitigate the risk of TB among solid organ transplant recipients has not yet been established in Taiwan. To address the challenges of TB among solid organ transplant recipients, a working group of the Transplantation Society of Taiwan was established. The working group searched literatures on TB among solid organ transplant recipients as well as guidelines and recommendations, and proposed interventions to strengthen TB prevention and care among solid organ transplant recipients.

The rate of solid organ transplant in reproductive-aged patients has increased in the past 3 decades. Concurrently, the range of medical immunosuppressive agents has increased, making it safer for reproductive-aged individuals who have received transplants to attempt and continue a pregnancy. In this Consult, we review the general considerations and contemporary approach to medical and obstetrical management of pregnant solid organ transplant recipients, discuss the perinatal outcomes and incidence of graft rejection specific to the most common types of organ transplants, and provide management recommendations based on the available evidence. The following are Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommendations: (1) we recommend that all solid organ transplant recipients capable of pregnancy be offered prepregnancy counseling as part of the pretransplant evaluation and before any posttransplant pregnancy (Best Practice); (2) we recommend deferring pregnancy for at least 1 year (except for lung transplant recipients in which case a 2-year deferral is recommended) following solid organ transplant or any episode of acute cellular rejection (GRADE 1B); (3) we recommend that solid organ transplant recipients have stable allograft function and optimal control of chronic medical comorbidities before attempting pregnancy (GRADE 1B); (4) we recommend that solid organ transplant recipients of reproductive age use highly effective contraception when on mycophenolate or other immunosuppressive agents with known teratogenic risk (GRADE 1A); (5) we recommend that solid organ transplant recipients contemplating pregnancy transition to an appropriate immunosuppressive regimen before attempting pregnancy to establish stable medication dosing and allograft function (GRADE 1C); (6) we recommend close monitoring of serum drug levels during pregnancy and the postpartum period to guide immunosuppressive therapy dosing (GRADE 1C); (7) we recommend that solid organ transplant recipients who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy receive all indicated vaccinations before and during pregnancy (GRADE 1C); (8) given the risk of fetal and neonatal sequelae secondary to cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy, we suggest that solid organ transplant recipients ideally complete any indicated antiviral prophylaxis or treatment before pursuing pregnancy (GRADE 2B); (9) we recommend daily low-dose aspirin prophylaxis to reduce the risk for preeclampsia in pregnant solid organ transplant recipients and to reduce the risk for renal allograft failure in renal transplant recipients (GRADE 1C); (10) as for all pregnant people, we recommend that pregnant solid organ transplant recipients have access to mental health specialists and receive screening for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period (Best Practice); (11) because of the increased incidence of fetal growth restriction and common coexisting medical morbidities, we recommend serial assessment of fetal growth every 4 to 6 weeks throughout gestation after the anatomic survey (GRADE 1C); (12) we suggest antenatal surveillance from 32 weeks of gestation unless other fetal or maternal factors are identified in which case initiation of surveillance at an earlier gestational age is indicated (GRADE 2C); (13) we recommend that renal function be assessed before pregnancy or in early pregnancy in all solid organ transplant recipients (kidney and non-kidney) (GRADE 1C); (14) we suggest individualized delivery timing for pregnant solid organ transplant recipients and to consider delivery at between 37+0/7 and 39+6/7 weeks of gestation; in the absence of other indications, we suggest delivery by 39+6/7 weeks gestation for pregnant solid organ transplant recipients (GRADE 2B); (15) given that a trial of labor is associated with a high success rate and lower neonatal morbidity without increasing maternal morbidity or compromising graft survival, we recommend that cesarean delivery be reserved for medical obstetrical indications in solid organ transplant recipients (GRADE 1C); (16) we recommend that blood pressure targets in pregnant renal transplant recipients with chronic hypertension follow guidelines for nonpregnant recipients with a target blood pressure of ≤130/80 mm Hg (GRADE 1C); (17) we recommend monthly urine cultures to screen for asymptomatic bacteriuria with treatment if positive to protect the graft in pregnant renal transplant recipients (GRADE 1C); (18) we recommend that pregnancies in pancreas-kidney transplant recipients be managed in a similar way as those of renal transplant recipients alone (GRADE 1C); (19) we recommend characterizing the underlying condition that led to liver transplantation and assessing baseline renal function in pregnant liver transplant recipients. (GRADE 1C); (20) because of the cardiovascular demand of pregnancy and the unique physiological implications of cardiac transplantation, we recommend that pregnant heart transplant recipients receive multidisciplinary care with cardiology, cardiac and/or obstetrical anesthesiology, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (Best Practice); and (21) we recommend careful delivery planning to minimize hemodynamic stress (including considering operative vaginal delivery to minimize Valsalva) and suggest continuous intrapartum or intraoperative electrocardiographic monitoring for heart transplant recipients (GRADE 1C).

BACKGROUND:

This new clinical practice guideline concerns the psychosocial diagnosis and treatment of patients before and after organ transplantation. Its objective is to establish standards and to issue evidence-based recommendations that will help to optimize decision making in psychosocial diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS:

For each key question, the literature was systematically searched in at least two databases (Medline, Ovid, Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL). The end date of each search was between August 2018 and November 2019, depending on the question. The literature search was also updated to capture recent publications, by using a selective approach.

RESULTS:

Lack of adherence to immunosuppressant drugs can be expected in 25-30% of patients and increases the odds of organ loss after kidney transplantation (odds ratio 7.1). Psychosocial interventions can significantly improve adherence. Metaanalyses have shown that adherence was achieved 10-20% more frequently in the intervention group than in the control group. 13-40% of patients suffer from depression after transplantation; mortality in this group is 65% higher. The guideline group therefore recommends that experts in psychosomatic medicine, psychiatry, and psychology (mental health professionals) should be involved in patient care throughout the transplantation process.

CONCLUSION:

The care of patients before and after organ transplantation should be multidisciplinary. Nonadherence rates and comorbid mental disorders are common and associated with poorer outcomes after transplantation. Interventions to improve adherence are effective, although the pertinent studies display marked heterogeneity and a high risk of bias.