Vaccination of solid organ transplant candidates and recipients: Guidelines from the American society of transplantation infectious diseases community of practice

Viral Hepatitis Other than A, B, and C: Evaluation and Management

Viral hepatitis can cause a wide spectrum of clinical presentations from a benign form with minimal or no symptoms to acute liver failure or death. Hepatitis D coinfection and superinfection have distinct clinical courses, with the latter more likely leading to chronic infection. Management of chronic hepatitis D virus is individualized because of the paucity of treatment options and significant side effect profile of currently available treatments. Sporadic cases of hepatitis E caused by contaminated meats are becoming increasingly prevalent in immunocompromised hosts. Human herpesviruses are an important cause of disease also in immunocompromised individuals.

Assessing Solid Organ Donors and Monitoring Transplant Recipients for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Infection - U.S. Public Health Service Guideline, 2020

The recommendations in this report supersede the U.S Public Health Service (PHS) guideline recommendations for reducing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) through organ transplantation (Seem DL, Lee I, Umscheid CA, Kuehnert MJ. PHS guideline for reducing human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus transmission through organ transplantation. Public Health Rep 2013;128:247-343), hereafter referred to as the 2013 PHS guideline. PHS evaluated and revised the 2013 PHS guideline because of several advances in solid organ transplantation, including universal implementation of nucleic acid testing of solid organ donors for HIV, HBV, and HCV; improved understanding of risk factors for undetected organ donor infection with these viruses; and the availability of highly effective treatments for infection with these viruses. PHS solicited feedback from its relevant agencies, subject-matter experts, additional stakeholders, and the public to develop revised guideline recommendations for identification of risk factors for these infections among solid organ donors, implementation of laboratory screening of solid organ donors, and monitoring of solid organ transplant recipients. Recommendations that have changed since the 2013 PHS guideline include updated criteria for identifying donors at risk for undetected donor HIV, HBV, or HCV infection; the removal of any specific term to characterize donors with HIV, HBV, or HCV infection risk factors; universal organ donor HIV, HBV, and HCV nucleic acid testing; and universal posttransplant monitoring of transplant recipients for HIV, HBV, and HCV infections. The recommendations are to be used by organ procurement organization and transplant programs and are intended to apply only to solid organ donors and recipients and not to donors or recipients of other medical products of human origin (e.g., blood products, tissues, corneas, and breast milk). The recommendations pertain to transplantation of solid organs procured from donors without laboratory evidence of HIV, HBV, or HCV infection. Additional considerations when transplanting solid organs procured from donors with laboratory evidence of HCV infection are included but are not required to be incorporated into Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy. Transplant centers that transplant organs from HCV-positive donors should develop protocols for obtaining informed consent, testing and treating recipients for HCV, ensuring reimbursement, and reporting new infections to public health authorities.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing the immunogenecity and safety of a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination to a repeated dose 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of invasive pneumococcal disease is significant among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The optimal pneumococcal vaccination strategy for SOT patients is not known.

METHODS

The potential kidney transplant recipients in dialysis were randomized into two arms: to receive a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) before transplantation or to receive a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) before transplantation and a second dose of PCV13 six months after the transplantation. Serotype-specific antibody concentrations and opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) were measured before and after the first vaccination (visits V1,V2) and six and seven months after the transplantation, for example, before and after the second PCV13 (visits V3,V4).

RESULTS

Out of 133 participants, 48 (PCV13 arm) and 46 (PPV23 arm) received a kidney transplant, and 37 + 37 in both arms completed the study. After the first vaccination, the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) in the PCV13 arm were significantly higher for 9/13 serotypes and the OPA geometric mean titers (GMTs) were significantly higher for 4/13 serotypes. At V3, the antibody levels had declined but OPA remained significantly higher for 7/13 (PCV13) vs 4/13 (PPV23) serotypes. At V4, the GMCs for 9/13 serotypes and the GMTs for 12/13 serotypes were significantly higher in the PCV13 arm. The GMCs but not GMTs were lower than at V2. There was no difference in adverse effects. No vaccine-related allograft rejection was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity of PCV13 was better in dialysis patients, and revaccination with PCV13 was immunogenic and safe.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster virus serology and infections in solid organ transplant recipients during the first year post-transplantation

BACKGROUND

Mumps, measles, rubella, and varicella-zoster viruses (MMRV) may cause severe infections in seronegative adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients but can be prevented by vaccination. We aimed to determine MMRV serostatus in adult SOT recipients before and one-year post-transplantation as well as evidence of MMRV infections in a large, prospective cohort of SOT recipients.

METHODS

A prospective study of 1182 adult SOT recipients included in the Management of Posttransplant Infections in Collaborating Hospitals (MATCH) cohort from 2011 to 2017 with a one-year follow-up. Systematic monitoring of MMRV serology was performed prior to transplantation and one-year post-transplantation. PCR was used to confirm viral replication in SOT-recipients presenting with clinical evidence of infection.

RESULTS

Among 1182 adult SOT recipients, 28 (2.4%), 77 (6.5%), 65 (5.5%), and 22 (1.9%) were seronegative for measles, mumps, rubella, and VZV, respectively, and 165 (14%) were seronegative for at least one of the MMRV viruses. One-year post-transplantation, 29/823 (3.5%) of seropositive SOT recipients had seroreverted, and 63/111 (57%) of seronegative SOT recipients seroconverted for at least one MMRV virus. No evidence of MMR infections was found, but 8 (0.7%) SOT recipients developed symptoms and had a positive VZV PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of SOT recipients were seronegative for at least one of the MMRV viruses. MMRV infections in SOT recipients may disseminate and become fatal, and although only few cases of VZV infection were detected, results from this study suggest increase attention towards vaccination of patients waiting for SOT.

Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccination Followed by Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccination in Lung Transplant Candidates and Recipients

Background

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccination as well as pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination are recommended for lung transplant candidates and recipients, but the combination of these vaccines has not been extensively studied in these specific populations.

Methods

Lung transplant candidates and recipients were vaccinated with a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, followed 8 weeks later by a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. Pneumococcal antibody levels against 13 pneumococcal serotypes were measured and followed up after 1 year in the transplant recipients. These values were compared with a historical control group vaccinated with the polysaccharide vaccine alone.

Results

Twenty-five lung transplant candidates and 23 lung transplant recipients were included. For the majority of serotypes, there was no significant increase in antibody levels after additional vaccination with the polysaccharide vaccine in both patient groups. When compared with the historical control group, the antibody response in lung transplant recipients 1 year after vaccination did not seem to have improved by vaccination with both vaccines instead of the polysaccharide vaccine alone.

Conclusions

Serologic vaccination responses in lung transplant candidates and recipients were not improved by giving a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine after a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. The benefit of this vaccination schedule in lung transplant recipients seems to differ from other immunocompromised populations. The optimal vaccination schedule for lung transplant candidates and recipients remains to be determined.

Screening of donors and recipients for infections prior to solid organ transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is a brief overview of current guidelines on screening donors and candidates for bacterial, fungal, parasitic and viral infections prior to solid organ transplantation. The pretransplant period is an important time to evaluate infection exposure risk based on social history as well as to offer vaccinations.

RECENT FINDINGS

One of the major changes in the past few years has been increased utilization of increased Public Health Service risk, HIV positive, and hepatitis C-positive donors. There has also been increased attention to donor and recipient risks for geographically associated infections, such as endemic fungal infections and flaviviruses.

SUMMARY

Screening for donors and candidates prior to organ transplantation can identify and address infection risks. Diagnosing infections in a timely manner can help guide treatment and additional testing. Use of necessary prophylactic treatment in organ recipients can prevent reactivation of latent infections and improve posttransplant outcomes.

Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection and Prevention of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Children With Acquired Immunodeficiencies or Undergoing Immune Suppressive, Cytotoxic, or Biological Modifier Therapies

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a known complication of immune-suppressive, cytotoxic, and biological modifier therapies in patients currently infected with HBV or who have had past exposure to HBV. Nowadays, newer and emerging forms of targeted biologic therapies are available for the management of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions and solid-organ, bone marrow, or haematologic stem cell transplant but there is currently a lack of a systematic approach to the care of patients with or at risk of HBV reactivation. The Hepatology Committee of the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) together with a working group of ESPGHAN members with clinical and research expertise in viral hepatitis developed an evidence-based position paper on reactivation of HBV infection in children identifying pertinent issues addressing the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of this condition. Relevant clinical questions were formulated and agreed upon by all the members of the working group. Questions were answered and positions were based on evidence resulting from a systematic literature search on PubMed and Embase from their inception to July 1, 2019. A document was produced and the working group and ESPGHAN Hepatology Committee members voted on each recommendation, using a formal voting technique. A recommendation was accepted provided upon agreement by at least 75% of the working group members. This position paper provides a comprehensive update on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of HBV reactivation in children.

What's Hot in Clinical Infectious Diseases? 2019 IDWeek Summary

The year 2019 brought about a multitude of innovations in clinical infectious diseases. With the continued rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), advances in diagnostics and newly available antibiotics offer additional strategies for combating this threat, but the broken antibiotic market serves as an impediment to further developments. The IDSA and other stakeholders are working to create novel pull incentives to stabilize the pipeline. Ongoing needs include developing optimal stewardship practices, including by using narrow-spectrum antibiotics and shorter durations of therapy. In the area of solid organ transplantation, early data from transplanting Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected organs are encouraging and the American Society of Transplantation (AST) released new guidelines addressing several key issues. Lastly, 2019 saw a resurgence in Measles emphasizing the importance of vaccination.

Optimizing Vaccination in Adult Patients With Liver Disease and Liver Transplantation

http://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2046-2484/video/15-2-reading-rhee a video presentation of this article http://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2046-2484/video/15-2-interview-rhee an interview with the author.

Management and prophylaxis of bacterial and mycobacterial infections among lung transplant recipients

Bacterial and mycobacterial infections are associated with morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients. Infectious complications are categorized by timing post-transplant: <1, 1–6, and >6 months. The first month post-transplant is associated with the highest risk of infection. During this period, infections are most commonly healthcare-associated, and include infections related to surgical complications. The lungs and bloodstream are common sites of infections. Common healthcare-associated organisms include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Gram-negative bacilli such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Clostridioides difficile. More than 1-month post-transplant, opportunistic infections can occur. Tuberculosis occurs in 0.8–10% of lung transplant recipients which reflects variation in background prevalence. The majority of post-transplant tuberculosis stems from reactivation of untreated or undiagnosed latent tuberculosis. Most post-transplant tuberculosis occurs in the lungs and develops within a year of transplant. Non-tuberculous mycobacteria commonly colonize the lungs of lung transplant candidates and are often hard to eradicate even with prolonged courses of antimycobacterial agents. Drug interactions between antimycobacterial agents and calcineurin and mTOR inhibitors also complicates treatment post-transplant. Given that infection adversely impacts outcomes after lung transplant, and that anti-infective therapy is often less effective after transplant, infection prevention is key to long-term success. A comprehensive approach that includes pre-transplant evaluation, perioperative prophylaxis, long-term antimicrobial prophylaxis, immunization, and safer living at home and in the community, should be employed to minimize the risk of infection.

Infection prophylaxis and management of viral infection

Viral infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients. Importantly, several viral infections have been associated with the development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Community-acquired respiratory viruses (CARV) such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), are frequently associated with acute and chronic rejection. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a significant burden in regards to morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is mostly involved with the development of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), a lymphoid proliferation that occurs in the setting of immunosuppression. On the other hand, the development of direct acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is changing the use of HCV-positive organs in transplantation. In this article we will focus on reviewing common viral infections that have a significant impact on lung transplant recipients looking at epidemiology, prevention and potential treatment.

Prevention Strategies to Minimize the Infection Risk Associated with Biologic and Targeted Immunomodulators

The introduction of biologic and targeted immunomodulators is a significant breakthrough in the therapeutic area of various fields of medicine. The occurrence of serious infections, a complication of secondary immunosuppression associated with these agents, leads to increased morbidity and mortality. Implementing preventive strategies could minimize infection-related complications and improve therapeutic outcomes. The purpose of this review is to focus on current evident approaches regarding screening, monitoring, preventing (immunization and chemoprophylaxis), and management of infections in patients who are candidates for about 70 biologic and targeted immunomodulators. Recommendations are based on relevant guidelines, especially the ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document series published in 2018.

Advances in vaccinating immunocompromised children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Immunocompromised children are a largely under-vaccinated population and are vulnerable to acquiring vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs). A variety of factors contribute to poor vaccine coverage including: severity of underlying illness, sporadic contact with primary care physicians, and lack of awareness among specialty providers regarding vaccination status. In this review, we report recent data regarding incidence of VPIs, new approaches to vaccine use, rates of vaccine coverage, and strategies to optimize vaccine administration in immunocompromised populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pediatric transplant recipients and patients with autoimmune disorders receiving novel biological therapies, represent growing immunocompromised patient populations. VPIs continue to be a concern for such patients. Underlying disease severity may limit efforts to immunize pediatric patients early in their disease process, prior to immunosuppression. Inactive vaccines are safe and immunogenic after the introduction of immunosuppression, but live vaccines are typically contraindicated. Emerging data support the safety and effectiveness of live vaccines in certain immunocompromised individuals. Care providers must remain vigilant in maintaining patients' vaccination status based on current vaccination guidelines, and create a multidisciplinary approach to optimizing vaccination.

SUMMARY

Immunocompromised children remain under-vaccinated and vulnerable to VPIs. Optimizing vaccines should be a priority for every provider caring for this population.

Preparing for the 2019-2020 influenza season

Although the 2017-2018 influenza season had very high rates of influenza-associated illness, the 2018-2019 influenza season was comparable to previous seasons. Influenza A was the most commonly identified type worldwide, although variations in influenza A subtype prevalence existed. Influenza vaccination remains the single most effective way to prevent influenza-associated illness. A novel influenza antiviral, baloxavir, has demonstrated promising results; however, concerns about development of resistance exist.

Underimmunization of the solid organ transplant population: An urgent problem with potential digital health solutions

Solid organ transplant recipients are at risk for potentially life-threatening infections due to lifelong immunosuppression. Vaccine-preventable infections result in graft injury, morbidity, mortality, and significantly increased medical costs. Unfortunately, the majority of transplant recipients continue to be underimmunized at the time of transplant and thereafter. Given the rising rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal in the general population, transplant recipients can no longer rely on herd immunity to protect them from vaccine-preventable infections. Novel tools are desperately needed to overcome transplant-specific immunization barriers to improve immunization rates in this high-risk population. Digital health technologies may offer a solution by addressing transplant-specific barriers: specifically, providing accurate information about vaccine safety, efficacy, and timing in the pre- and posttransplant periods; making a complete immunization record universally available and easily accessible; enabling communication between patients and multiple providers; and providing automated vaccine reminders to both patients and providers when vaccines are due using transplant-specific immunization guidelines. Digital health has transformed health care by empowering patients with their own health information and connecting patients, their providers, and public health officials. In doing so, it offers a potential platform to address and overcome the problem of underimmunization in the transplant population.

Under-immunization of pediatric transplant recipients: a call to action for the pediatric community

Vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs) are a common and serious complication following transplantation. One in six pediatric solid organ transplant recipients is hospitalized with a VPI in the first 5 years following transplant and these hospitalizations result in significant morbidity, mortality, graft injury, and cost. Immunizations are a minimally invasive, cost-effective approach to reducing the incidence of VPIs. Despite published recommendations for transplant candidates to receive all age-appropriate immunizations, under-immunization remains a significant problem, with the majority of transplant recipients not up-to-date on age-appropriate immunizations at the time of transplant. This is extremely concerning as the rate for non-medical vaccine exemptions in the United States (US) is increasing, decreasing the reliability of herd immunity to protect patients undergoing transplant from VPIs. There is an urgent need to better understand barriers to vaccinating this population of high-risk children and to develop effective interventions to overcome these barriers and improve immunization rates. Strengthened national policies requiring complete age-appropriate immunization for non-emergent transplant candidates, along with improved multi-disciplinary immunization practices and tools to facilitate and ensure complete immunization delivery to this high-risk population, are needed to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent infectious complications in pediatric transplant recipients.

Serologic screening and infectious disease consultation (IDC): Indicated in heart, lung, liver (HLL) solid organ transplants (SOT) for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are a special group of patients who require comprehensive evaluation for preventable infectious diseases before transplantation. The main aim of our study was to investigate the number of heart, lung, and liver (HLL) transplant recipients who were evaluated for their immune status against measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), and varicella (VZV). As a secondary aim, we investigated whether pre-transplant infectious disease consultation (IDC) improves vaccination rates.

METHODS

This study was an institution-based retrospective analysis of HLL transplant recipients born in or after 1957 and evaluated at Mayo Clinic, FL Transplant Center between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2017. Data collection was obtained from electronic medical records. The vaccination rates were compared by univariate analysis based on IDC and no ID consultation (NIDC).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-seven (77%) of a total 242 patients received an IDC pre-transplantation. Varicella IgG levels were screened in all 187 IDC candidates. Among the 187 IDC patients, mumps, measles, and rubella IgG serologies were performed in 9 (5%), 21 (11%), and 51 (27%), respectively. Among all 242 patients, vaccines given included 2 (0.8%) MMR, 10 (4.1%) varicella and 85 (35.12%) Zostavax. Univariate analysis revealed that Zostavax was given to 76 (40.6%) pre-transplant IDC patients and only in 9 (16.7%) NIDC patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the relatively high IDC rate, patients' screened numbers for MMR IgG levels were low. Results pointed out the need for MMR protocol-driven serologic screening as well as for VZV and IDC prior to transplantation to increase vaccination rates.

Live vaccines after pediatric solid organ transplant: Proceedings of a consensus meeting, 2018

Growing evidence suggests receipt of live-attenuated viral vaccines after solid organ transplant (SOT) has occurred and is safe and needed due to lapses in herd immunity. A 2-day consortium of experts in infectious diseases, transplantation, vaccinology, and immunology was held with the objective to review evidence and create expert recommendations for clinicians when considering live viral vaccines post-SOT. For consideration of VV and MMR post-transplant, evidence exists only for kidney and liver transplant recipients. For MMR vaccine post-SOT, consider vaccination during outbreak or travel to endemic risk areas. Patients who have received antiproliferative agents (eg. mycophenolate mofetil), T cell-depleting agents, or rituximab; or have persistently elevated EBV viral loads, or are in a state of functional tolerance, should be vaccinated with caution and have a more in-depth evaluation to define benefit of vaccination and net state of immune suppression prior to considering vaccination. MMR and/or VV (not combined MMRV) is considered to be safe in patients who are clinically well, are greater than 1 year after liver or kidney transplant and 2 months after acute rejection episode, can be closely monitored, and meet specific criteria of "low-level" immune suppression as defined in the document.

Community-Acquired Respiratory Viruses in Transplant Patients: Diversity, Impact, Unmet Clinical Needs

Patients undergoing solid-organ transplantation (SOT) or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are at increased risk for infectious complications. Community-acquired respiratory viruses (CARVs) pose a particular challenge due to the frequent exposure pre-, peri-, and posttransplantation. Although influenza A and B viruses have a top priority regarding prevention and treatment, recent molecular diagnostic tests detecting an array of other CARVs in real time have dramatically expanded our knowledge about the epidemiology, diversity, and impact of CARV infections in the general population and in allogeneic HCT and SOT patients. These data have demonstrated that non-influenza CARVs independently contribute to morbidity and mortality of transplant patients. However, effective vaccination and antiviral treatment is only emerging for non-influenza CARVs, placing emphasis on infection control and supportive measures. Here, we review the current knowledge about CARVs in SOT and allogeneic HCT patients to better define the magnitude of this unmet clinical need and to discuss some of the lessons learned from human influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenzavirus, rhinovirus, coronavirus, adenovirus, and bocavirus regarding diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

Varicella zoster virus in solid organ transplantation: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice review the diagnosis, prevention, and management of varicella zoster virus (VZV) in the pre- and post-transplant period. Primary varicella is an uncommon complication post-solid-organ transplant (SOT), except among pediatric transplant patients and those seronegative for VZV. As the majority of SOT recipients are seropositive for VZV, herpes zoster (HZ) occurs frequently following SOT, particularly among recipients who are older (≥65 years of age) and those receiving more intensive immunosuppression. Transplant providers should aware of the increased risk for HZ-related complications such as dissemination, organ-specific involvement, and post-herpetic neuralgia. Treatment for localized zoster is primarily given as oral regimens, but those with more complicated presentations or those at risk for dissemination should be treated initially with IV therapy. Available antiviral prophylaxis regimens and vaccination strategies for varicella and HZ among these immunosuppressed patients remain a mainstay for prevention in the pre-and post-transplant periods. Finally, we discuss important approaches to addressing post-exposure prophylaxis and infection control practices for those SOT patients with documented VZV infections.

Strategies for safe living following solid organ transplantation-Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

The present AST-IDCOP guidelines update information on strategies for safe living after organ transplantation. While transplantation carries an increased risk for infection from the recipient's environment due to lifelong immunosuppression, the goal is for the recipient to be able to return to their home and live as normal a life as possible with a functioning graft. The current guideline provides updates to prior recommendations including additions on infections from water and food sources, exposures to animals, cannabis use as well as sexual exposures or those encountered with travel. Similar to the prior editions, many of the recommendations are based on good infection prevention standards, extrapolation from other immunocompromised hosts, and risks found from cases series in transplant patients. Enhanced education and attention to incorporating safe living strategies into daily life should help to accomplish successful transplant with recipients achieving a fulfilling life away from the hospital.