Daly, Kevin P

ImportanceStudies suggest that everolimus may reduce the risk of rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cytomegalovirus (CMV) after heart transplant. Everolimus use is controversial because of data demonstrating higher infection deaths when everolimus is introduced de novo after transplant. It is unclear whether everolimus is safe and effective when initiated at 6 months posttransplant in children, a population in which median graft survival is limited to 15 years and randomized clinical trials are lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of everolimus combined with low-dose tacrolimus to prevent major adverse transplant events (MATEs) in children after heart transplant.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial enrolling 211 patients who were alive 6 months after pediatric heart transplant at 25 US sites from February 2018 to August 2020. The last date of follow-up was April 17, 2023.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus (n = 107) or standard-dose tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (n = 104) for 30 months.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy end point was the MATE-3 score at 30 months, a validated composite ordinal end point including acute cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD. The primary safety end point was the MATE-6 score, encompassing the MATE-3 score plus antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.ResultsAmong 211 children randomized, the mean age was 8.2 (SD, 6.3) years, 97 (46%) underwent transplant for congenital heart disease, and 49 (23%) were treated for rejection before 6 months. At 30 months, the mean MATE-3 score did not differ between the 2 treatment groups (mean difference, −0.32; 95% CI, −0.90 to 0.20; P = .16). The mean MATE-6 score was no higher in the everolimus group than in the mycophenolate group (baseline-adjusted mean difference, −0.40; 95% CI, −1.81 to 0.93), meeting the success criterion for safety (noninferiority margin <3). There were no differences in graft survival, MATE-free survival, or freedom from any individual MATE. Everolimus was associated with greater improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 12 months (mean difference, 10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.09-19.91 mL/min/1.73 m2) and a lower incidence of CMV infection (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.93).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong 6-month pediatric heart transplant survivors, everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus did not differ from tacrolimus and mycophenolate in preventing the composite of cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD at 30 months. However, everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus appear to be safe based on the total burden of 6 MATEs and may be associated with improved kidney function and less CMV infection.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03386539

CASE: Phillip is a young man born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome referred to your practice for a range of mental health concerns. He underwent palliation to an extracardiac Fontan in infancy and experienced multiple complications over the next decade including valvular regurgitation and arrhythmias necessitating a pacemaker. Phillip continued to have systolic heart failure with New York Heart Association class II symptoms, managed with 4 medications and anticoagulation. Despite this complex history, Phillip had intact cognitive abilities, achieved typical milestones, and performed well academically in secondary school. His first year of college proved to be more challenging, and Phillip presented to the outpatient psychiatry service with an acute depressive episode. His family history included depression, without known attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Treatment, including a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, cognitive behavioral therapy, and family support, led to near resolution of his symptoms of depression. In subsequent appointments, Phillip described a long history of inattention and disorganization with onset in childhood. This contributed to the decision to leave college, despite remission of symptoms of depression. Phillip was unable to study for any extended period without “perfect conditions,” described as the absence of potential distractions except for background music. Despite attempts to maintain “perfect conditions,” Phillip was often off task and “hyperfocusing” on irrelevant topics. Phillip struggled with planning and time management and would misplace items daily. Moreover, although the importance of self-care was well understood, Phillip often forgot to take his cardiac medication or to exercise, and he admitted to inconsistent sleep habits because of losing track of time. Based on a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation including retrospective report from a parent, Phillip was diagnosed with ADHD, coexisting with major depressive disorder, in remission. Significant ADHD symptoms were documented by interview, self-report, and administration of an abbreviated neuropsychological battery. Considering concerns regarding use of stimulants in a patient with congenital heart disease, including death, stroke, and myocardial infarction,1,2 how would you assess the risks-benefits of use of stimulants with Phillip? REFERENCES 1. Wilens TE, Prince JB, Spencer TJ, et al. Stimulants and sudden death: what is a physician to do? Pediatrics. 2006;118:1215–1219. 2. Zito JM, Burcu M. Stimulants and pediatric cardiovascular risk. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2017;27:538–545.

Abstract Despite increasing legalization and use of marijuana, there is no consensus among pediatric heart transplant institutions or providers regarding users' eligibility for cardiac transplant. We sent a survey to pediatric and ACHD transplant providers (physicians, surgeons, transplant coordinators, and pharmacists) assessing their current institution's policies and their personal opinions about marijuana use in patients being considered for heart transplantation. Of the respondents, 84% practice in the United States and Canada. Most providers (80%) care for both pediatric and ACHD patients. Respondents included cardiologists (77%) and surgeons (11%), with the remaining being coordinators and pharmacists. Most providers (73%) reported their institution had no policy regarding marijuana use in heart transplant candidates. Only 20% of respondents' institutions consider mode of consumption, with 87% and 53% approving of oral and transdermal routes, respectively, and only 7% approving of vaporized or smoked routes. While 73% of providers would consider illegal marijuana use an absolute/relative contraindication to heart transplant listing, the number decreases to 57% for legal recreational users and 21% for legal medical users. Most providers personally believe marijuana to be physically and mentally/emotionally harmful to pediatric patients (67% and 72%, respectively). Many institutions lack a policy regarding marijuana use in pediatric and ACHD heart transplant candidates, and there is considerable disagreement among providers on the best practice. With increasing legalization and use of marijuana, each institution will have to address this issue thoughtfully to continue to provide high‐quality, consistent, and equitable care for pediatric and ACHD heart transplant candidates.