Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is a recognized cause of allograft dysfunction in lung transplant recipients. Unlike AMR in other solid-organ transplant recipients, there are no standardized diagnostic criteria or an agreed-upon definition. Hence, a working group was created by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation with the aim of determining criteria for pulmonary AMR and establishing a definition. Diagnostic criteria and a working consensus definition were established. Key diagnostic criteria include the presence of antibodies directed toward donor human leukocyte antigens and characteristic lung histology with or without evidence of complement 4d within the graft. Exclusion of other causes of allograft dysfunction increases confidence in the diagnosis but is not essential. Pulmonary AMR may be clinical (allograft dysfunction which can be asymptomatic) or sub-clinical (normal allograft function). This consensus definition will have clinical, therapeutic and research implications.

No abstract

The presence of preexisting (memory) or de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSAs) is a known barrier to successful long-term organ transplantation. Yet, despite the fact that laboratory tools and our understanding of histocompatibility have advanced significantly in recent years, the criteria to define presence of a DSA and assign a level of risk for a given DSA vary markedly between centers. A collaborative effort between the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics and the American Society of Transplantation provided the logistical support for generating a dedicated multidisciplinary working group, which included experts in histocompatibility as well as kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation. The goals were to perform a critical review of biologically driven, state-of-the-art, clinical diagnostics literature and to provide clinical practice recommendations based on expert assessment of quality and strength of evidence. The results of the Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) meeting are summarized here, providing recommendations on the definition and utilization of HLA diagnostic testing, and a framework for clinical assessment of risk for a memory or a primary alloimmune response. The definitions, recommendations, risk framework, and highlighted gaps in knowledge are intended to spur research that will inform the next STAR Working Group meeting in 2019.

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.

Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are common after lung transplantation and there are limited data for the use of antifungal prophylaxis in these patients. Our aim was to compare the safety and describe the effectiveness of universal prophylaxis with two azole regimens in lung transplant recipients. This is a retrospective study in lung transplant recipients from July 2003 to July 2006 who received antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole or voriconazole plus inhaled amphotericin B to compare the incidence of hepatotoxicity. Secondary outcomes include describing the incidence of IFI, clinical outcomes after IFI and mortality.Sixty-seven consecutive lung transplants received antifungal prophylaxis, 32 itraconazole and 35 voriconazole and inhaled amphotericin B. There were no significant differences between groups in the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) score at the time of transplantation, demographic characteristics, comorbidities and concomitant use of hepatotoxic medications. Hepatotoxicity occurred in 12 patients receiving voriconazole and inhaled amphotericin B and in no patients receiving itraconazole (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups with regard to the percentage of transplants with IFI, but one case of zygomycosis occurred in a transplant treated with voriconazole. Voriconazole prophylaxis after lung transplantation was associated with a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity and similar clinical effectiveness when compared to itraconazole.

The protocol was associated with a significant increase in the number of lung donors and transplant procedures without compromising pulmonary function, length of stay, or survival of the recipients.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have made immense strides in optimizing antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral use in clinical settings. However, although ASPs are required institutionally by regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada, they are not mandated for transplant centers or programs specifically. Despite the fact that solid organ transplant recipients in particular are at increased risk of infections from multidrug-resistant organisms, due to host and donor factors and immunosuppressive therapy, there currently are little rigorous data regarding stewardship practices in solid organ transplant populations, and thus, no transplant-specific requirements currently exist. Further complicating matters, transplant patients have a wide range of variability regarding their susceptibility to infection, as factors such as surgery of transplant, intensity of immunosuppression, and presence of drains or catheters in situ may modify the risk of infection. As such, it is not feasible to have a "one-size-fitsall" style of stewardship for this patient population. The objective of this white paper is to identify opportunities, risk factors, and ASP strategies that should be assessed with solid organ transplant recipients to optimize antimicrobial use, while producing an overall improvement in patient outcomes. We hope it may serve as a springboard for development of future guidance and identification of research opportunities. K E Y W O R D S antibiotic prophylaxis, ethics and public policy, health services and outcomes research, infection and infectious agents, organ transplantation in general How to cite this article: So M, Hand J, Forrest G, et al. White paper on antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant recipients.

Patients undergoing evaluation for solid organ transplantation (SOT) often have a history of malignancy. Although the cancer has been treated in these patients, the benefits of transplantation need to be balanced against the risk of tumor recurrence, especially in the setting of immunosuppression. Prior guidelines of when to transplant patients with a prior treated malignancy do not take in to account current staging, disease biology, or advances in cancer treatments. To develop contemporary recommendations, the American Society of Transplantation held a consensus workshop to perform a comprehensive review of current literature regarding cancer therapies, cancer stage‐specific prognosis, the kinetics of cancer recurrence, and the limited data on the effects of immunosuppression on cancer‐specific outcomes. This document contains prognosis based on contemporary treatment and transplant recommendations for breast, colorectal, anal, urological, gynecological, and nonsmall cell lung cancers. This conference and consensus documents aim to provide recommendations to assist in the evaluation of patients for SOT given a history of a pretransplant malignancy.