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.
In this multicenter study of 90 solid organ transplant recipients diagnosed with COVID‐19 during the first three weeks of the outbreak in New York City, the authors report on the clinical presentation, laboratory abnormalities, risk factors, disease severity, and outcomes.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Biomarkers have the potential to transform the detection, treatment, and outcomes of liver transplant complications, though their application is limited due to the lack of prospective validation. ...Although many genetic, proteomic, and immune markers correlating with allograft rejection and graft dysfunction have been described, evaluation of these markers in combination and validation among a broad liver transplant recipient population remain understudied. In this review, we present evidence supporting biomarker applications in 5 clinical liver transplant scenarios: (i) diagnosis of allograft rejection, (ii) prediction of allograft rejection, (iii) minimization of immunosuppression, (iv) detection of fibrosis and recurrent disease, and (v) prediction of renal recovery following liver transplantation. Current limitations for biomarker utilization and opportunities for further investigation are discussed. Accurate risk assessment, diagnosis, and evaluation of treatment responses using such noninvasive tools will pave the way for a more personalized and precise approach to management of the liver transplant patients that has profound potential to reduce morbidity and improve graft and patient longevity.
Background & Aims Excellent single-center outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma caused the United Network of Organ Sharing to ...offer a standardized model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception for this disease. We analyzed data from multiple centers to determine the effectiveness of this treatment and the appropriateness of the MELD exception. Methods We collected and analyzed data from 12 large-volume transplant centers in the United States. These centers met the inclusion criteria of treating 3 or more patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using neoadjuvant therapy, followed by liver transplantation, from 1993 to 2010 (n = 287 total patients). Center-specific protocols and medical charts were reviewed on-site. Results The patients completed external radiation (99%), brachytherapy (75%), radiosensitizing therapy (98%), and/or maintenance chemotherapy (65%). Seventy-one patients dropped out before liver transplantation (rate, 11.5% in 3 months). Intent-to-treat survival rates were 68% and 53%, 2 and 5 years after therapy, respectively; post-transplant, recurrence-free survival rates were 78% and 65%, respectively. Patients outside the United Network of Organ Sharing criteria (those with tumor mass >3 cm, transperitoneal tumor biopsy, or metastatic disease) or with a prior malignancy had significantly shorter survival times ( P < .001). There were no differences in outcomes among patients based on differences in surgical staging or brachytherapy. Although most patients came from 1 center (n = 193), the other 11 centers had similar survival times after therapy. Conclusions Patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed up by liver transplantation at 12 US centers had a 65% rate of recurrence-free survival after 5 years, showing this therapy to be highly effective. An 11.5% drop-out rate after 3.5 months of therapy indicates the appropriateness of the MELD exception. Rigorous selection is important for the continued success of this treatment.
OBJECTIVE:We sought to develop a “Model Of Recurrence After Liver transplant” (MORAL) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
BACKGROUND:The Milan criteria are used to allocate livers to patients with ...HCC requiring liver transplantation (LT) but do not include objective measures of tumor biology. Biological markers including the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) have been associated with recurrence risk.
METHODS:Prospective cohort study of adults undergoing LT for HCC between January 2001 and December 2012.
RESULTS:A total of 339 patients were included. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, 3 preoperatively available factors were independent predictors of worse recurrence-free survival (RFS), namely, an NLR ≥ 5 (P < 0.0001, hazard ratio, HR6.2), AFP > 200 (P < 0.0001, HR3.8), and Size >3 cm (P < 0.001, HR3.2). The Pre-MORAL score was constructed from the hazard ratios and assigning patients points in an additive fashion, with a minimum of 0 points (no factors) and a maximum of 13 points (all 3 factors). The highest risk patients in the Pre-MORAL had a 5-year RFS of 17.9% compared with 98.6% for the low risk group (P < 0.0001). The post-MORAL was constructed similarly using the 4 postoperatively available independent predictors of worse RFS, grade 4 HCCʼs (P < 0.0001, HR5.6), vascular invasion (P = 0.019, HR2.0), size >3 cm (P < 0.0001, HR3.2) and number >3 (P = 0.048, HR1.8). The pre- and post-MORAL were superior to Milan at predicting recurrence with c-statistics of 0.82 and 0.87, compared with 0.63, respectively. We then combined the scores to produce a combo-MORAL, with a c-statistic of 0.91 for predicting recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS:The MORAL score provides a simple, highly accurate tool for predicting recurrence and risk-stratification pre- and postoperatively.
PDF
