Introduction Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV2) infection has drastically impacted the transplant communities. Remdesivir (RDV) has shown some promising results in coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) albeit with low certainty. Data in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are still lacking. Methods This was a retrospective cohort of 57 moderate to severe COVID‐19 positive KTR in a single center who received RDV as a part of COVID‐19 management. No dose adjustments were done. The outcomes were measured as acute kidney injury (AKI) recovery; liver function tests abnormalities; other side effects; graft loss and death. Results The median (inter‐quartile range) age of presentation was 44 (31‐51) years. The duration from onset of symptoms to RDV initiation was 6 (5‐7) days. Thirty‐two (56%) cases received RDV on the day of admission. Forty‐six (81%) cases were on oxygen support upon initiation of RDV. Thirty‐eight (66.6%) cases had acute kidney injury on admission. The median baseline, admission, and 28‐day follow‐up serum creatinine of the cohort were 1.59 (1.1‐2.1), 2.13 (1.3‐3.1), and 1.58 (1.05‐2.1) mg/dl, respectively. A total of 8(14%) cases died in the study with 1 (1.7%) graft loss. All those cases that died were on oxygen therapy at the time of initiation of RDV. No liver function derangements or any other major adverse events with the drug were reported. Conclusion RDV therapy is safe and clinically feasible in renal transplant recipients as seen in our cohort. Larger clinical registries and randomized clinical trials should be conducted to further explore the efficacy in transplant recipients.

Background We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID‐19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk factors involved for an impaired response. Methods We did a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies published up until January 11, 2022, that reported immunogenicity of COVID‐19 vaccine among SOT. The study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022300547. Results Of the 1527 studies, 112 studies, which involved 15391 SOT and 2844 healthy controls, were included. SOT showed a low humoral response (effect size [ES]: 0.44 [0.40–0.48]) in overall and in control studies (log‐Odds‐ratio [OR]: −4.46 [−8.10 to −2.35]). The humoral response was highest in liver (ES: 0.67 [0.61–0.74]) followed by heart (ES: 0.45 [0.32–0.59]), kidney (ES: 0.40 [0.36–0.45]), kidney‐pancreas (ES: 0.33 [0.13–0.53]), and lung (0.27 [0.17–0.37]). The meta‐analysis for standard and booster dose (ES: 0.43 [0.39–0.47] vs. 0.51 [0.43–0.54]) showed a marginal increase of 18% efficacy. SOT with prior infection had higher response (ES: 0.94 [0.92–0.96] vs. ES: 0.40 [0.39–0.41]; p ‐value < .01). The seroresponse with mRNA‐12723 mRNA was highest 0.52 (0.40–0.64). Mycophenolic acid (OR: 1.42 [1.21–1.63]) and Belatacept (OR: 1.89 [1.3–2.49]) had highest risk for nonresponse. SOT had a parallelly decreased cellular response (ES: 0.42 [0.32–0.52]) in overall and control studies (OR: −3.12 [−0.4.12 to −2.13]). Interpretation Overall, SOT develops a suboptimal response compared to the general population. Immunosuppression including mycophenolic acid, belatacept, and tacrolimus is associated with decreased response. Booster doses increase the immune response, but further upgradation in vaccination strategy for SOT is required.

Background There is a scarcity of data comparing the consequences of first and second COVID‐19 waves on kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) in India. Methods We conducted a single‐centre retrospective study of 259 KTRs with COVID‐19 to compare first wave (March 15–December 31 2020, n = 157) and second wave (April 1–May 31 2021, n = 102). Results KTRs during second wave were younger (43 vs. 40 years; p ‐value .04) and also included paediatric patients (0 vs. 5.9%; p ‐value .003). Symptoms were milder during the second wave (45 vs. 62.7%; p ‐value .007); COVID‐19 positive patients had less frequent cough (32 vs. 13.8%; p ‐value .001), fever was less frequent (58 vs. 37%; p ‐value .001), and we observed fewer co‐morbidities (11 vs. 20.6%; p ‐value .04). The percentages of neutrophils (77 vs. 83%; p ‐value .001) and serum ferritin (439 vs. 688; p ‐value .0006) were higher during second wave, while lymphocyte counts were reduced (20 vs. 14%; p ‐value .0001). Hydroxychloroquine (11 vs. 0%; p ‐value .0001) and tocilizumab (7 vs. 0%; p ‐value .004) were more frequently prescribed during first wave, while utilization of dexamethasone (6 vs. 27%; p ‐value .0001) and remdesivir (47 vs. 65%; p ‐value .03) increased during the second wave. Mucormycosis (1.3 vs. 10%; p ‐value .01) and ICU admissions (20 vs. 37.2%; p ‐value .002) were more frequent during second wave. The 28‐day mortality rate (9.6 vs. 10%; p ‐value 1) was not different. Conclusions There has been a different clinical spectrum of COVID‐19 amongst KTR with similar mortality between the two waves at a large Indian transplant centre.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Recent reports suggest that bridge–donor reneging is rare (1.5%) in non‐simultaneous kidney exchange chains. However, in developing countries, the non‐directed donors who would be needed to initiate chains are unavailable, and furthermore, limited surgical space and resources restrain the feasibility of simultaneous kidney exchange cycles. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the bridge–donor reneging rate during non‐simultaneous kidney exchange cycles (NSKEC) in a prospective single‐center cohort study (n = 67). We describe the protocol used to prepare co‐registered donor–recipient pairs for non‐simultaneous surgeries, in an effort to minimize the reneging rate. In addition, in order to protect any recipients who might be left vulnerable by this arrangement, we proposed the use of standard criteria deceased‐donor kidneys to rectify the injustice in the event of any bridge–donor reneging. We report 17 successful NSKEC resulting in 67 living‐donor kidney transplants (LDKT) using 23 bridge–donors without donor renege and no intervening pairs became unavailable. We propose that NSKEC could increase LDKT, especially for difficult‐to‐match sensitized pairs (25 of our 67 pairs) in countries with limited transplantation resources. Our study confirms that NSKEC can be safely performed with careful patient–donor selection and non‐anonymous kidney exchanges.