Theodoropoulos, Nicole

AbstractBackgroundBefore the 2014 policy change pertaining to infectious disease screening, many organ procurement organizations (OPOs) were supplementing serologic screening of deceased organ donors with nucleic acid testing (NAT) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV‐1), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV). The number of seronegative,NAT‐positive donors has not been directly measured.MethodsHIV,HBV, andHCVscreening results of 11 229 donor referrals evaluated from 2010 to 2013 were obtained from 3OPO‐affiliated laboratories, capturing 35% of all donors in the United States. Laboratories used either polymerase chain reaction assay or transcription‐mediated amplification assay to test 9643 deceased donors byNAT.ResultsTheNATresults were positive in 21 (0.2%), 1 (0.02%), and 11 (0.1%) donors who were seronegative forHIV,HBV, andHCV, respectively. All discordantHIV‐1 results were from one laboratory using a polymrease chain reaction assay. Thirteen of the reactiveHIV NATresults in seronegative referrals were repeated and were non‐reproducibly positive (NRP). Ten (0.1%), 452 (7.8%), and 197 (2.2%) ofHIV‐,HBV‐, andHCV‐seropositive donors, respectively, were negative byNAT.ConclusionsThis study highlights the importance of robust quality assurance to minimizeNRP NATresults.NATmay allow for increased utilization of organs fromHBV‐ andHCV‐seropositive,NAT‐negative donors.

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal treatment for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in adult immunocompromised patients is unknown. We assessed the management of RSV and other non‐influenza respiratory viruses in Midwestern transplant centers.MethodsA survey assessing strategies for RSV and other non‐influenza respiratory viral infections was sent to 13 centers.ResultsMultiplex polymerase chain reaction assay was used for diagnosis in 11/12 centers. Eight of 12 centers used inhaled ribavirin (RBV) in some patient populations. Barriers included cost, safety, lack of evidence, and inconvenience. Six of 12 used intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), mostly in combination with RBV. Inhaled RBV was used more than oral, and in the post‐stem cell transplant population, patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), graft‐versus‐host disease, and more recent transplantation were treated at higher rates. Ten centers had experience with lung transplant patients; all used either oral or inhaled RBV for LRTI, 6/10 treated upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). No center treated non‐lung solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with URTI; 7/11 would use oral or inhaled RBV in the same group with LRTI. Patients with hematologic malignancy without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were treated with RBV at a similar frequency to non‐lung SOT recipients. Three of 12 centers, in severe cases, treated parainfluenza and metapneumovirus, and 1/12 treated coronavirus.ConclusionsTreatment of RSV in immunocompromised patients varied greatly. While most centers treat LRTI, treatment of URTI was variable. No consensus was found regarding the use of oral versus inhaled RBV, or the use of IVIG. The presence of such heterogeneity demonstrates the need for further studies defining optimal treatment of RSV in immunocompromised hosts.