Miller, Rachel

AbstractBackgroundBetter access to direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapy has broadened the utilization of hepatitis C virus (HCV) nucleic acid testing (NAT) positive organs with excellent outcomes. However, DAA therapy has been associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation.AimTo determine the risk of HBV transmission or reactivation with utilization of HBV core antibody positive (HBcAb+) and HCV NAT positive (HCV+) organs, which presumably required DAA therapy.MethodsThe number of HBcAb+ donors with delineated HCV NAT status was obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database. The number of unexpected HBV infections from transplanted organs adjudicated as “proven” or “probable” transmission was obtained from the OPTN Ad Hoc Disease Transmission Advisory Committee database. A chart review of the donors of “proven” or “probable” cases was conducted.ResultsFrom January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021, 7735 organs were procured from 3767 HBcAb+ donors and transplanted into 7469 recipients; 545 (14.5%) donors were also HCV+. HBV transmission or reactivation occurred in seven recipients. The rate is not significantly different between recipients of HCV+ (0.18%, 2/1115) and the HCV NAT negative (HCV‐) organs (0.08%, 5/6354) (p = 0.28) or between recipients of HCV+ and HCV‐ livers as well as non‐liver organs. HBV transmission or reactivation occurred within a median of 319 (range, 41–1117) days post‐transplant in the setting of missing, inadequate, or truncated prophylaxis.ConclusionHBV reactivation associated with DAA therapy for HBcAb+ HCV+ organs is less frequent than reported in the non‐transplant population, possibly due to the common use of HBV prophylaxis in the at‐risk transplant population. image

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.