Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant reductions in transplantation, motivated in part by concerns of disproportionately more severe disease among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, clinical features, outcomes, and predictors of mortality in SOT recipients are not well-described. Methods We performed a multi-center cohort study of SOT recipients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected using standardized intake and 28-day follow-up electronic case report forms. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for the primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, among hospitalized patients. Results Four hundred eighty-two SOT recipients from >50 transplant centers were included: 318 (66%) kidney or kidney/pancreas, 73 (15.1%) liver, 57 (11.8%) heart, and 30 (6.2%) lung. Median age was 58 (IQR 46-57), median time post-transplant was 5 years (IQR 2-10), 61% were male, and 92% had ≥1 underlying comorbidity. Among those hospitalized (376 [78%]), 117 (31%) required mechanical ventilation, and 77 (20.5%) died by 28 days after diagnosis. Specific underlying comorbidities (age >65 [aOR 3.0, 95%CI 1.7-5.5, p<0.001], congestive heart failure [aOR 3.2, 95%CI 1.4-7.0, p=0.004], chronic lung disease [aOR 2.5, 95%CI 1.2-5.2, p=0.018], obesity [aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.4, p=0.039]) and presenting findings (lymphopenia [aOR 1.9, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p=0.033], abnormal chest imaging [aOR 2.9, 95%CI 1.1-7.5, p=0.027]) were independently associated with mortality. Multiple measures of immunosuppression intensity were not associated with mortality. Conclusions Mortality among SOT recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 20.5%. Age and underlying comorbidities rather than immunosuppression intensity-related measures were major drivers of mortality.

This study suggests that the use of newer immunosuppressive agents in recent years is associated with some changes in the epidemiology of post-transplant infections. Enterococci have become the predominant uropathogen. Invasive fungal infections, although rare, are often fatal.

BACKGROUND A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear. METHODS In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study. RESULTS Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded. CONCLUSIONS This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.)

Incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) offers a survival advantage over dialysis to patients with anti‐HLA donor‐specific antibody (DSA). Program‐specific reports (PSRs) fail to account for ILDKT, placing this practice at regulatory risk. We collected DSA data, categorized as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF) (n = 185), positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC) (n = 536) or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC) (n = 304), from 22 centers. We tested associations between DSA, graft loss and mortality after adjusting for PSR model factors, using 9669 compatible patients as a comparison. PLNF patients had similar graft loss; however, PFNC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15–2.23, p = 0.007) and PCC (aHR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.71–6.77, p < 0.001) were associated with increased graft loss in the first year. PLNF patients had similar mortality; however, PFNC (aHR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.28–3.26; p = 0.003) and PCC (aHR = 4.59; 95% CI: 2.98–7.07; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. We simulated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services flagging to examine ILDKT's effect on the risk of being flagged. Compared to equal‐quality centers performing no ILDKT, centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PFNC had a 1.19‐, 1.33‐ and 1.73‐fold higher odds of being flagged. Centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PCC had a 2.22‐, 4.09‐ and 10.72‐fold higher odds. Failure to account for ILDKT's increased risk places centers providing this life‐saving treatment in jeopardy of regulatory intervention.

Our findings suggest that HIV+ patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy can undergo successful renal transplantation with a low incidence of both AR and AIDS-associated and non-AIDS associated infections, despite associated risk factors for poorer outcome. Our encouraging but preliminary results with this protocol will need to be verified in larger numbers of HIV+ renal allograft recipients with longer follow-up.

There are limited data on the results of early steroid withdrawal (ESW) in African-American (AA) renal allograft recipients. We examined short-term transplant outcomes in a retrospective, non-concurrent cohort study of 40 AAs who did not (ESW group), and 33 who did [steroid maintenance (SM) group] receive maintenance steroids after day 4 post-transplant. Patients received thymoglobulin (ATG) induction, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus or sirolimus. Data were analyzed using survival analysis methods and regression models. Patients in the ESW group were older, had lower current panel reactive antibody and fewer re-transplants, and received fewer doses of ATG. Oneyear graft survival and acute rejection (AR) rates were 100% and 13% in the ESW group and 97% and 15% in the SM group. After controlling for confounders, at 1 year, ESW was not associated with higher risk of graft loss, AR, or worse graft function, but was associated with less weight gain. The SM group had higher cholesterol levels at 3 months and higher risk of posttransplant diabetes mellitus. We did not observe any cases of subclinical rejection. This study suggests that ESW under modern immunosuppression is safe over the short term in at least a subset of AA recipients with risk profiles similar to those studied herein, and could be associated with improved outcomes.

Cinacalcet appears to be an effective drug for the treatment of posttransplant hypercalcemia due to persistent secondary hyperparathyroidism. Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up will be needed to better elucidate the efficacy/safety profile for this agent, particularly with regard to long-term bone histology and renal outcomes.

The results of our study suggest that the choice of induction agent may not have a major impact on graft outcomes in AA renal-allograft recipients.