Outcomes of COVID-19 in a Large Cohort of Lung Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective Study

Background: Early reports of COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) showed high hospitalization and mortality rates. However, the outcomes of COVID-19 in LTRs since the advent of newer therapies and vaccines have been poorly defined. Methods: We evaluated the risks for SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization and mortality in a cohort of LTRs at the Henry Ford Lung Transplant Program in Detroit, Michigan during the study period March 2020–March 2022. Univariate logistic regression, followed by multivariable modeling were performed to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confident intervals (CI). Results: Sixty-four laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified in 59 patients. For the primary analysis of the hospitalization and mortality risks, we included these 59 patients with symptomatic COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from a nasopharynx swab. The mean age (±STD) was 61 (±12), 63% were males, 27% were African Americans, and the time from lung transplant to COVID-19 was 5.5 (±4.8) years. Thirty-four (57.6%) patients were hospitalized, and the inpatient mortality rate was 24% (8/34). A multivariable analysis showed that patients with a higher baseline forced expiratory volume (FEV1) were less likely to be hospitalized (OR = 0.91 and 95% CI 0.87–0.98, p = 0.02). Seventy-five percent (75%; 6/8) of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation died, compared with only 8% mortality rate in those without mechanical ventilation (OR = 36.0 and 95% CI 4.2–310.4, p p = 0.17) and Delta (p = 0.22) waves, no significant risk was detected after adjusting for other covariates. Five LTRs were diagnosed with COVID-19 twice. Thirty of the sixty-four COVID-19 cases (46.8%) occurred in LTRs that had received at least two doses of any of the available mRNA vaccines at a median of 123 days (IQR 98–164 days) after vaccination. Twelve of the thirty (40%) were hospitalized, and four patients (33%) died during their hospitalizations. Conclusions: In our LTR population, the hospitalization and mortality rates associated with COVID-19 were high despite the increased use of new therapies. Vaccine-breakthrough infections were common and were associated with poor outcomes. Studies are needed to determine optimal prevention and therapeutic strategies to improve COVID-19 outcomes in LTRs

Hepatitis E Diagnosis and Management After Liver, Kidney, or Heart Transplant: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND: Transplant-related hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is a rarely recognized phenomenon with significant clinical importance given its potential to result in chronic hepatitis posttransplant. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated HEV diagnosis and treatment after liver, kidney, and heart transplant in a single center. We identified patients diagnosed with HEV by serologic testing and evaluated their treatment regimens. RESULTS: Fifteen transplant recipients (12 liver, 2 kidney, and 1 heart) presented with elevated liver enzymes and were positive for HEV IgM antibody. Liver enzymes normalized in 4 patients after being treated with ribavirin. One of the 4 patients had 2 recurrences with positive HEV RNA results following ribavirin treatment but recovered after 12 months of ribavirin therapy. After treatment with reduction in immunosuppression without antiviral treatment, 6 of 8 patients\u27 liver enzymes normalized. One of these patients died of acute pancreatitis 2 months after testing positive for HEV IgM antibody. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for complications related to active HEV infections in transplant recipients necessitates prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent irreversible damage. Diagnosis with HEV reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction should follow a positive HEV IgM antibody test. This manuscript provides evidence that ribavirin antiviral therapy and reducing immunosuppression are effective treatments for HEV infections in liver, kidney, and heart transplant recipients, which has not been sufficiently investigated in the population of the United States. Larger multicenter studies are needed to confirm the risks and benefits of using ribavirin antiviral therapy as first-line therapy of HEV posttransplant

Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin monitored by anti-factor Xa vs. activated partial Thromboplastin time.

Anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) monitoring of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is associated with less time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation compared to the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). However, it is unknown whether clinical outcomes differ between these methods of monitoring. The aim of this research was to compare the rate of venous thrombosis and bleeding events in patients that received UFH monitored by anti-Xa compared to the aPTT. A retrospective review of electronic health records identified adult patients that received UFH given intravenously (IV) for ≥2 days, with either anti-Xa or aPTT monitoring at an academic tertiary care hospital. This was a pre/post study design conducted between January 1 to December 30, 2014 (aPTT), and January 1 to December 30, 2016 (anti-Xa). All UFH adjustments were based on institutional nomograms. The primary outcome was venous thrombosis and the secondary outcome was bleeding, both of which occurred between UFH administration and discharge from the index hospitalization. A total of 2500 patients were in the anti-Xa group and 2847 patients aPTT group. Venous thrombosis occurred in 10.2% vs 10.8% of patients in the anti-Xa and aPTT groups, respectively (P = .49). Bleeding occurred in 33.7% vs 33.6% of patients in the anti-Xa and aPTT groups, respectively (P = .94). Anti-Xa monitoring was not an independent predictor of either outcome in multivariate logistic regression analyses. Our study found no difference in clinical outcomes between anti-Xa and aPTT-based monitoring of UFH IV