Back to Authors

Malinis, Maricar

0000-0002-5720-9994

Mayo Clinic

Vanderbilt University

Citations 3

The Association of Pretransplant CD4 Count With Post‐Kidney Transplant Infectious Outcomes Among Persons With HIV
Burns, Rebecca, Booth, Sara, Marks, Christin Rogers, Hand, Jonathan , Barnaba, Brittany , Pavlakis, Martha , Krakower, Douglas, Le‐Mahajan, Audrey, Booth, Sara, Durand, Christine M. , Hand, Jonathan M. , Abidi, Maheen Z. , Malinis, Maricar , Alonso, Carolyn D. , Le-Mahajan, Audrey

Transplant Infectious Disease | August 17, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1111/tid.70290 Get It

ABSTRACT Background Few studies have examined pretransplant CD4 count and risk of post‐kidney transplant (KT) infection in persons with HIV (PWH). Methods This multi‐center, retrospective cohort study included adult PWH undergoing KT from 2004 to 2019. The primary outcome was infection in the first year post‐KT in PWH with pretransplant CD4 < 350 cells/µL versus CD4 ≥ 350 cells/µL. Relative risk was assessed using modified Poisson modeling. Restricted mean survival time analysis was used to assess 5‐year posttransplant outcomes. Results Of the 75 patients included, 27% had a pretransplant CD4 < 350 cells/µL. Those with CD4 < 350 versus CD4 ≥ 350 were more likely to be hospitalized for infection in the first year (55% versus 16%, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in relative risk of infection in the first‐year posttransplant (RR: 1.31, p = 0.053), 5‐year overall survival (87.5% vs. 93%, p = 0.49) or 5‐year graft loss (29.4% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.61) betweengroups. Conclusion These findings suggest that pretransplant CD4 count alone may not reflect the true risk of post‐KT infection in PWH.
Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
Brahmania, Mayur , Kuo, Alexander , Tapper, Elliot B. , Völk, Michael , Vittorio, Jennifer , Ghabril, Marwan , Morgan, Timothy R. , Kanwal, Fasiha , Parikh, Neehar D. , Mehta, Shivang , Goldberg, David S. , Duarte‐Rojo, Andrés , Paredes, Angelo H. , Sahota, Amandeep , McElroy, Lisa M. , Thomas, Charlie, Aslam, Saima , Ramakrishnan, Sudha , Flynn, Mary M. , Volk, Michael L , Vittorio, Jennifer M , Mehta, Shivang , Winder, Scott , Im, Gene , Goldberg, David , Lai, Jennifer , Duarte-Rojo, Andres , Paredes, Angelo H , Patel, Arpan , Sahota, Amandeep , McElroy, Lisa M , Wall, Anji E , Malinis, Maricar , Aslam, Saima , Simonetto, Douglas A , Ufere, Nneka N , Ramakrishnan, Sudha , Ibrahim, Yasmin , Asrani, Sumeet K , Serper, Marina , Ghabril, Marwan S , Parikh, Neehar D , Kanwal, Fasiha , Martin, Paul B. , Winder, Gerald Scott , Lai, Jennifer C. , Patel, Arpan , Wall, Anji , Simonetto, Douglas A. , Asrani, Sumeet K. , Serper, Marina

Hepatology | March 27, 2024 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 742-753

10.1097/hep.0000000000000870 Get It

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.