Parajuli, Sandesh

Vaccination remains a cornerstone of infection prevention in adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, a population at heightened risk for vaccine-preventable diseases due to chronic immunosuppression and comorbidities. Updated guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice (AST IDCOP) and other international bodies emphasize the need for timely and comprehensive vaccination strategies before and after transplantation. This review synthesizes current literature and practice guidelines on vaccination in adult solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients. Published peer-reviewed studies, clinical trials, and consensus guidelines were evaluated, with emphasis on vaccination timing, safety, immunogenicity, dosing strategies, and serologic response monitoring in the SOT population. Comprehensive vaccination planning before transplantation, combined with appropriate post-transplant booster strategies, remains vital to improving long-term outcomes in SOT recipients. This review provides clinicians with an updated, evidence-based framework for integrating evolving vaccination guidelines into the care of adult transplant patients.

ABSTRACTBackground and ObjectiveSeladelpar is an oral, once‐daily medication that improves cholestasis through its selective peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor (PPAR‐δ) agonism. It shows promising efficacy in treating primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and WOS until July 19th, 2025. Dichotomous outcomes were reported using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThree RCTs with 499 patients were included. Seladelpar was significantly associated with an increased ALP normalization (RR: 21.12 with 95% CI [4.14, 107.58], p < 0.01), biochemical response (RR: 3.06 with 95% CI [2.00, 4.70], p < 0.01), and decreased pruritus NRS score change (MD: −1.47 with 95% CI [−2.73, −0.21], p = 0.02). Seladelpar was also significantly associated with a decreased incidence of pruritus (RR: 0.54 with 95% CI [0.31, 0.94], p = 0.03) but with an increased incidence of headache (RR: 3.37 with 95% CI [1.11, 10.23], p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between seladelpar and placebo regarding the incidence of any adverse events (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI [0.87, 1.06], p = 0.43).ConclusionSeladelpar improved liver biomarkers of cholestasis and reduced pruritus in patients with PBC without significantly increasing the adverse effects. This makes seladelpar a promising addition to the treatments available for PBC.Trial Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024521208

Currently, approximately 90,000 patients are on the kidney transplant waitlist in the United States, including 10,000 individuals awaiting re-transplantation due to prior graft failure. Allograft rejection remains a leading cause of kidney transplant failure. While the current gold standard for diagnosing rejection is tissue biopsy, it is invasive and impractical for routine or longitudinal graft surveillance. This review summarizes the current landscape of non-invasive biomarkers for detecting and predicting kidney transplant rejection, with a focus on both historical context and recent advancements. In particular, we highlight the roles of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) and gene expression profiling (GEP) in identifying acute rejection. We also discuss emerging biomarkers such as torque teno virus (TTV), which has shown potential as an indirect indicator of immunosuppression levels and rejection risk. Importantly, this review excludes biomarker studies that rely on tissue biopsy, emphasizing non-invasive approaches to rejection monitoring.

AbstractWell‐selected patients with kidney disease and diabetes mellitus who undergo simultaneous kidney‐pancreas transplantation often experience dramatic improvements in quality of life and long‐term survival compared to those who remain on medical therapy. Over the past several years the importance of frailty in the pancreas transplant candidate and recipient populations has grown. More patients with advanced age have entered the waitlist, and complications from prolonged diabetes, even in younger patients, have created increased evidence of risk for frailty. Given these concerns, and the broad challenges facing pancreas transplantation volumes overall, we generated this review to help establish the impact and implications. We summarize the interplay of immunological factors, aging, environmental factors, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease that put these patients at risk for frailty. We discuss its measurement and recommend a combination of two instruments (both well‐validated and one entirely objective). We describe the outcomes for patients before and after pancreas transplantation who may have frailty, and what interventions can be taken to mitigate its effects. Broader investigation into frailty in the pancreas transplant population is needed to better understand how to select patients for pancreas transplantation and to how manage its consequences thereafter.

AbstractBackgroundDue to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs.MethodsSurveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019.ResultsOne hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low (<5 PT/year), intermediate (6–20), or high (>20). High‐volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program‐specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs.ConclusionsOverall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high‐volume programs.