Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) remains a leading complication after solid organ transplantation. Previous international PTDM consensus meetings in 2003 and 2013 provided standardized frameworks to reduce heterogeneity in diagnosis, risk stratification and management. However, the last decade has seen significant advancements in our PTDM knowledge complemented by rapidly changing treatment algorithms for management of diabetes in the general population. In view of these developments, and to ensure reduced variation in clinical practice, a 3rd international PTDM Consensus Meeting was planned and held from 6-8 May 2022 in Vienna, Austria involving global delegates with PTDM expertise to update the previous reports. This update includes opinion statements concerning optimal diagnostic tools, recognition of prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance), new mechanistic insights, immunosuppression modification, evidence-based strategies to prevent PTDM, treatment hierarchy for incorporating novel glucose-lowering agents and suggestions for the future direction of PTDM research to address unmet needs. Due to the paucity of good quality evidence, consensus meeting participants agreed that making GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) recommendations would be flawed. Although kidney-allograft centric, we suggest that these opinion statements can be appraised by the transplantation community for implementation across different solid organ transplant cohorts. Acknowledging the paucity of published literature, this report reflects consensus expert opinion. Attaining evidence is desirable to ensure establishment of optimized care for any solid organ transplant recipient at risk of, or who develops, PTDM as we strive to improve long-term outcomes.

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.

AIMS:

This study aimed to provide up-to-date information on paediatric population pharmacokinetic models of tacrolimus and to identify factors influencing tacrolimus pharmacokinetic variability.

METHODS:

Systematic searches in the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane, EMBASE databases and reference lists of articles were conducted from inception to March 2023. All population pharmacokinetic studies of tacrolimus using nonlinear mixed-effect modelling in paediatric solid organ transplant patients were included.

RESULTS:

Of the 21 studies reviewed, 62% developed from liver transplant recipients and 33% from kidney transplant recipients. Most studies used a 1-compartment model to describe tacrolimus pharmacokinetics. Body weight was a significant predictor for tacrolimus volume of distribution (Vd/F). The estimated Vd/F for 1-compartment models ranged from 20 to 1890 L, whereas the peripheral volume of distribution (Vp/F) for 2-compartment models was between 290 and 1520 L. Body weight, days post-transplant, CYP3A5 genotype or haematocrit were frequently reported as significant predictors of tacrolimus clearance. The estimated apparent clearance values range between 0.12 and 2.18 L/h/kg, with inter-individual variability from 13.5 to 110.0%. Only 29% of the studies assessed the generalizability of the models with external validation.

CONCLUSION:

This review highlights the potential factors, modelling approaches and validation methods that impact tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in a paediatric population. The clinician could predict tacrolimus clearance based on body weight, CYP3A5 genotype, days post-transplant or haematocrit. Further research is required to determine the relationship between pharmacogenetics and tacrolimus pharmacodynamics in paediatric patients and confirm the applicability of nonlinear kinetics in this population.

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.

BACKGROUND:

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with cystic fibrosis (CF) may benefit from the pulmonary and extrapulmonary benefits associated with CF transmembrane conductance regulator modulators. Nevertheless, evolution of modulator safety and efficacy data prompts consideration.

METHODS:

The search terms "transplant" AND "ivacaftor"(IVA) OR "lumacaftor"(LUM) OR "tezacaftor" (TEZ) OR "elexacaftor" (ELX) were utilized to conduct a scoping review of English articles from the period of January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2022. Search results from PubMed and Embase databases were reviewed by title and abstract for relevance. Included studies reported efficacy and safety outcomes of modulators in SOT recipients.

RESULTS:

One hundred thirty-six patients from one cohort study (90 lung transplant recipients) and eight case reports and series (29 lung transplant recipients, 16 liver transplant recipients and one lung/liver transplant patient) were included. Post-modulator initiation, 33 patients did not necessitate tacrolimus dose adjustments, 10 required dose uptitration, and 43 required dose reductions. Moreover, LUM/IVA use with azole antifungals may lead to subtherapeutic levels but opposing effects sustained tacrolimus levels. Liver transplant recipients were more likely to experience elevations in transaminases requiring pharmacologic or medical interventions. Majority of patients experienced improvements in pulmonary function, fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin, body mass index, and rhinosinusitis symptoms. However, intolerance or lack of benefit prompted discontinuation of ELX/TEZ/IVA in over 40% of lung-transplant recipients in one study.

CONCLUSION:

Modulator therapy has been reported to produce pulmonary and extra-pulmonary benefits in the CF population with SOT. Considerations for modulator therapy initiation ought to include modulator pharmacokinetics, concomitant medications, and transplant type due to the complex nature of SOT recipients.

This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of live-attenuated varicella vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Medline and EMBASE were searched using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. The included articles reported varicella vaccine administration in the posttransplant period in children and adults. A pooled proportion of transplant recipients who seroconverted and who developed vaccine-strain varicella and varicella disease was generated. Eighteen articles (14 observational studies and 4 case reports) were included, reporting on 711 transplant recipients who received the varicella vaccine. The pooled proportion was 88.2% (95% confidence interval 78.0%-96.0%, 13 studies) for vaccinees who seroconverted, 0% (0%-1.2%, 13 studies) for vaccine-strain varicella, and 0.8% (0%-4.9%, 9 studies) for varicella disease. Most studies followed clinical guidelines for administering live-attenuated vaccines, with criteria that could include being at least 1 year posttransplant, 2 months postrejection episode, and on low-dose immunosuppressive medications. Varicella vaccination in transplant recipients was overall safe in the included studies, with few cases of vaccine-strain-induced varicella or vaccine failure, and although it was immunogenic, the proportion of recipients who seroconverted was lower than that seen in the general population. Our data support varicella vaccination in select pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.