-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2023Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at increased risks of morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at increased risks of morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in SOT recipients.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched for eligible reports published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included reports evaluating the humoral immune response (HIR) or cellular immune response rate in SOT recipients after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines.
PARTICIPANTS
SOT recipients who received COVID-19 vaccines.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess bias in case-control and cohort studies. For randomised-controlled trials, the Jadad Scale was used.
METHODS
We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled rates of immune response with 95% CI. We used a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for a comparison of immune responses between SOT and healthy controls.
RESULTS
A total of 91 reports involving 11 886 transplant recipients (lung: 655; heart: 539; liver: 1946; and kidney: 8746) and 2125 healthy controls revealed pooled HIR rates after the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd COVID-19 vaccine doses in SOT recipients were 9.5% (95% CI, 7-11.9%), 43.6% (95% CI, 39.3-47.8%) and 55.1% (95% CI, 44.7-65.6%), respectively. For specific organs, the HIR rates were still low after 1st vaccine dose (lung: 4.4%; kidney: 9.4%; heart: 13.2%; liver: 29.5%) and 2nd vaccine dose (lung: 28.4%; kidney: 37.6%; heart: 50.3%; liver: 64.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
A booster vaccination enhances the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in SOT; however, a significant share of the recipients still has not built a detectable HIR after receiving the 3rd dose. This finding calls for alternative approaches, including the use of monoclonal antibodies. In addition, lung transplant recipients need urgent booster vaccination to improve the immune response.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Organ Transplantation; Transplant Recipients; COVID-19; Vaccines
PubMed: 36509376
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.004 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... Jul 2015The use of radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer has been increasing during the last decade partially due to the widespread adoption of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer has been increasing during the last decade partially due to the widespread adoption of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic technique. Although no prospective, randomized controlled trials have compared open radical prostatectomy (ORP) with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP), numerous comparative studies have been retrospectively conducted.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed to clarify the role and advancement of RALRP. Studies comparing ORP with RALRP that measured outcomes of cancer control, urinary and sexual function, and complications were included. A nonsystematic review was utilized to describe the advancements in the techniques used for RALRP.
RESULTS
RALRP is the procedure of choice when treating localized prostate cancer. This preference is due to the observed improvement in morbidity rates, as evidenced by decreased rates of blood loss and postoperative pain and similar oncological outcomes when compared with ORP. Robotic assistance during surgery is continually being modified and the techniques advanced, as evidenced by improved nerve sparing for preserving potency and reconstruction of the bladder neck to help in the early recovery of urinary continence.
CONCLUSIONS
Morbidity rates should continue to improve with the advancement of minimally invasive techniques for radical prostatectomy. The adoption of robotic assistance during surgery will continue as the applications of robotic-assisted surgery expand into other solid organ malignancies.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26351883
DOI: 10.1177/107327481502200305 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Several studies have investigated the impact of circulating complement-activating anti-human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (anti-HLA DSAs) on organ... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Several studies have investigated the impact of circulating complement-activating anti-human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (anti-HLA DSAs) on organ transplant outcomes. However, a critical appraisal of these studies and a demonstration of the prognostic value of complement-activating status over anti-HLA DSA mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) level are lacking.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and critical appraisal evaluating the role of complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs on allograft outcomes in different solid organ transplants. We included studies through Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase since inception of databases till May 05, 2023. We evaluated allograft loss as the primary outcome, and allograft rejection as the secondary outcome. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and funnel plots to assess risk of bias and used bias adjustment methods when appropriate. We performed multiple subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity and studied the added value of complement assays over anti-HLA DSA MFI level.
RESULTS
In total, 52 studies were included in the final meta-analysis (11,035 patients). Complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs were associated with an increased risk of allograft loss (HR 2.77; 95% CI 2.33-3.29, p<0.001; I²=46.2%), and allograft rejection (HR 4.98; 95% CI 2.96-8.36, p<0.01; I²=70.9%). These results remained significant after adjustment for potential sources of bias and across multiple subgroup analyses. After adjusting on pan-IgG anti-HLA DSA defined by the MFI levels, complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs were significantly and independently associated with an increased risk of allograft loss.
DISCUSSION
We demonstrated in this systematic review, meta-analysis and critical appraisal the significant deleterious impact and the independent prognostic value of circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs on solid organ transplant risk of allograft loss and rejection.
Topics: Humans; Graft Rejection; Organ Transplantation; Complement System Proteins; Transplantation, Homologous; HLA Antigens
PubMed: 37849755
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1265796 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2021Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is underdiagnosed due to the use of serological assays with low sensitivity. Although most patients with HEV recover completely, HEV... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is underdiagnosed due to the use of serological assays with low sensitivity. Although most patients with HEV recover completely, HEV infection among patients with pre-existing chronic liver disease and organ-transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy can result in decompensated liver disease and death.
AIM
To demonstrate the prevalence of HEV infection in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.
METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for eligible articles through October 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients with history of SOT. HEV infection is confirmed by either HEV-immunoglobulin G, HEV-immunoglobulin M, or HEV RNA assay.
RESULTS
Of 563 citations, a total of 22 studies ( = 4557) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimated prevalence of HEV infection in SOT patients was 20.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 14.9-26.8]. The pooled estimated prevalence of HEV infection for each organ transplant was as follows: liver (27.2%; 95%CI: 20.0-35.8), kidney (12.8%; 95%CI: 9.3-17.3), heart (12.8%; 95%CI: 9.3-17.3), and lung (5.6%; 95%CI: 1.6-17.9). Comparison across organ transplants demonstrated statistical significance (Q = 16.721, = 0.002). The subgroup analyses showed that the prevalence of HEV infection among SOT recipients was significantly higher in middle-income countries compared to high-income countries. The pooled estimated prevalence of de novo HEV infection was 5.1% (95%CI: 2.6-9.6) and the pooled estimated prevalence of acute HEV infection was 4.3% (95%CI: 1.9-9.4).
CONCLUSION
HEV infection is common in SOT recipients, particularly in middle-income countries. The prevalence of HEV infection in lung transplant recipients is considerably less common than other organ transplants. More studies examining the clinical impacts of HEV infection in SOT recipients, such as graft failure, rejection, and mortality are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Hepatitis E; Hepatitis E virus; Humans; Organ Transplantation; RNA, Viral; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33828397
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i12.1240 -
The Canadian Journal of Hospital... 2018Pharmacists have been involved in the care of transplant recipients for several decades, and a growing body of literature shows the beneficial effects of clinical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacists have been involved in the care of transplant recipients for several decades, and a growing body of literature shows the beneficial effects of clinical pharmacist care on important outcomes for these patients.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to describe the roles and impacts of pharmacists in a solid organ transplant setting. The secondary objective was to describe and rate the pharmacists' interventions.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases-PubMed, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews-were searched from January 1, 1990, to June 16, 2015.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
All studies addressing the roles of pharmacists and the impacts of clinical pharmacy services on the care of solid organ transplant recipients were considered. Only studies providing a statistical analysis were included. Design, setting, sample size, patient characteristics, pharmacists' interventions, study bias, and outcomes were extracted for analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four randomized controlled trials, 4 cohort studies, 3 pre-post studies, and 1 quasi-randomized controlled trial were included in the review, representing a total of 1837 patients. Of the 12 studies included, 8 specifically focused on renal transplant, and 1 each focused on liver, lung, abdominal organ, and general solid organ transplant. The pivotal pharmacist activities leading to the main patient outcomes were medication counselling ( = 8 studies), medication reconciliation ( = 5), and reviewing and optimizing drug therapy ( = 3). Improvements to medication adherence ( = 6 studies), morbidity ( = 4), costs ( = 2), and medication errors ( = 2) were reported.
CONCLUSION
Currently available evidence suggests that pharmacists can improve patient outcomes in the solid organ transplant setting. Adherence, morbidity, costs, and medication errors were identified as the main outcomes that were improved by pharmaceutical interventions. Transplant programs need to invest more in this resource.
PubMed: 30401999
DOI: No ID Found -
Vaccines Aug 2022Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event that leads to the cascade of events that result in rejection of a transplanted organ.
OBJECTIVES
To describe the results of a systematic review for solid organ rejections following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on the incidence of solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection, published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022, with English language restriction.
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-six cases from fifty-two articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review (56 solid organs rejected post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 40 solid organs rejected following COVID-19 infection). Cornea rejection (44 cases) was the most frequent organ observed post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and following COVID-19 infection, followed by kidney rejection (36 cases), liver rejection (12 cases), lung rejection (2 cases), heart rejection (1 case) and pancreas rejection (1 case). The median or mean patient age ranged from 23 to 94 years across the studies. The majority of the patients were male ( = 51, 53.1%) and were of White (Caucasian) ( = 51, 53.7%) and Hispanic ( = 15, 15.8%) ethnicity. A total of fifty-six solid organ rejections were reported post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech ( = 31), Moderna ( = 14), Oxford Uni-AstraZeneca ( = 10) and Sinovac-CoronaVac ( = 1)]. The median time from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to organ rejection was 13.5 h (IQR, 3.2-17.2), while the median time from COVID-19 infection to organ rejection was 14 h (IQR, 5-21). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term allograft rejection therapy [graft success ( = 70, 85.4%), graft failure ( = 12, 14.6%), survived ( = 90, 95.7%) and died ( = 4, 4.3%)].
CONCLUSION
The reported evidence of solid organ rejections post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COIVD-19 infection should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.
PubMed: 36016180
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10081289 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2022Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is an immunosuppressive drug commonly used for prophylaxis of graft rejection in solid organ transplant recipients. The main concern with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is an immunosuppressive drug commonly used for prophylaxis of graft rejection in solid organ transplant recipients. The main concern with the prolonged use of immunosuppressive drugs is the risk of developing cancer. However, it remains unclear whether the immunosuppressive regimens containing MPA confer an increased degree of cancer risk. The present study aimed to determine the association between MPA exposure and the incidence of cancer in solid organ transplant recipients.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Relevant articles that had findings on the incidence (or event) of cancer in cohorts with and without MPA exposure were retrieved for data extraction. A meta-analysis was conducted by means of the random-effects model, and the relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used as a summary effect measure.
RESULTS
A total of 39 studies were eligible for inclusion, with 32 studies that enabled meta-analysis. MPA exposure was significantly associated with a lower risk of cancer when compared to azathioprine exposure (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.53-0.81, P < .001) or no exposure to any additional treatments (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.73-0.99, P = .04). There was no significant difference in cancer risk for the comparison between MPA exposure and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor exposure (RR = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.96-2.46, P = .07).
CONCLUSIONS
MPA exposure was not associated with an increased risk of cancer and may even be associated with a lower risk of cancer when compared to azathioprine or no treatment.
Topics: Azathioprine; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mycophenolic Acid; Neoplasms; Organ Transplantation; Risk
PubMed: 34240462
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14979 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2017The Hepatic CHEMOSAT Delivery System is an innovative medical device for the treatment of patients with unresectable primary liver tumors or unresectable hepatic... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The Hepatic CHEMOSAT Delivery System is an innovative medical device for the treatment of patients with unresectable primary liver tumors or unresectable hepatic metastases from solid organ malignancies. This system is used to perform chemosaturation percutaneous hepatic perfusion (CS-PHP), a procedure in which a high dose of the chemotherapeutic agent melphalan is delivered directly to the liver while limiting systemic exposure. In a clinical trial program, CS-PHP with melphalan significantly improved hepatic progression-free survival in patients with unresectable hepatic metastases from ocular or cutaneous melanoma. Clinically meaningful hepatic responses were also observed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or neuroendocrine tumors. Furthermore, the results of published studies and case reports demonstrated that CS-PHP with melphalan resulted in favorable tumor response rates in a range of tumor histologies (ocular or cutaneous melanoma, colorectal cancer, and hepatobiliary tumors). Analyses of the safety profile of CS-PHP revealed that the most common adverse effects were hematologic events (thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia), which were clinically manageable. Taken together, these findings indicate that CS-PHP is a promising locoregional therapy for patients with primary and secondary liver tumors and has a acceptable safety profile.
FUNDING
Delcath Systems Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemotherapy, Cancer, Regional Perfusion; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Melanoma; Melphalan; Middle Aged; Skin Neoplasms; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 27798773
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0424-4 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Dec 2021High quality sleep of sufficient duration is vital to overall health and wellbeing. Self-reported poor quality of sleep, sleep reported as irregular in timing, marked by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
High quality sleep of sufficient duration is vital to overall health and wellbeing. Self-reported poor quality of sleep, sleep reported as irregular in timing, marked by frequent awakenings, or shortened in duration, is common across the solid-organ transplant trajectory.
AIM
This Systematic Review aimed to summarize available literature on rates of self-reported poor quality of sleep among solid organ transplant candidates and recipients.
METHODS
A systematic search of published literature was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINHAL, and PsychInfo databases with no date restrictions. Original articles in the English language describing self-reported quality of sleep using standardized questionnaires in adults either waitlisted for, or who received a solid organ transplant (heart, lung, kidney, liver, pancreas, or multi-solid organ) were included.
RESULTS
Of a potential 2054 articles identified, 44 were included (63.6% renal transplant, 20.5% liver transplant, 11.4% lung transplant, and 4.5% included multiple organ transplant populations), with the majority (68.2%) focusing only on post-transplant populations. No included articles focused solely on heart or pancreas transplant populations. On average, the transplant population with the greatest improvement in quality of sleep (reported as poor sleep quality, insomnia, sleep disturbance, or sleep dissatisfaction) from transplant candidacy to post-transplantation were renal transplant (from 53.5% pre, to 38.9% post) followed by liver transplant patients (from 52.8% pre, to 46.3% post), while lung transplant patients remained similar pre- to post-transplantation (55.6% pre, to 52% post). Poor quality of sleep was frequently associated with anxiety and depression, poorer quality of life, restless legs syndrome, and higher comorbidity.
CONCLUSIONS
Reports of poor quality of sleep are highly prevalent across all solid-organ transplant populations, both pre- and post-transplantation. Future studies should assess quality of sleep longitudinally throughout all phases of the transplantation trajectory, with more research focusing on how to optimize sleep in solid organ transplant populations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Organ Transplantation; Quality of Life; Self Report; Sleep; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 34534733
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2021.100650 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Jan 2021Severe acute respiratory virus syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a worldwide pandemic. Early studies in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients suggested a wide variety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Severe acute respiratory virus syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a worldwide pandemic. Early studies in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients suggested a wide variety of presentations, however, there remains a paucity of robust data in this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of SOT recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from January 1 t October 9, 2020. Pooled incidence of symptoms, treatments and outcomes were assessed. Two hundred and fifteen studies were included for systematic review and 60 for meta-analysis. We identified 2,772 unique SOT recipients including 1,500 kidney, 505 liver, 141 heart and 97 lung. Most common presenting symptoms were fever and cough in 70.2% and 63.8% respectively. Majority (81%) required hospital admission. Immunosuppressive medications, especially antimetabolites, were decreased in 76.2%. Hydroxychloroquine and interleukin six antagonists were administered in59.5% and 14.9% respectively, while only few patients received remdesivir and convalescent plasma. Intensive care unit admission was 29% from amongst hospitalized patients. Only few studies reported secondary infections. Overall mortality was 18.6%. Our analysis shows a high incidence of hospital admission in SOT recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. As management of SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, long-term outcomes among SOT recipients should be assessed in future studies.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Immunosuppression Therapy; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33246166
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2020.100588