Immunization of Solid Organ Transplant Candidates and Recipients: A 2018 Update

Live-attenuated vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella in pediatric liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Infections are a serious short- and long-term problem after pediatric organ transplantation. In immunocompromised patients, they can lead to transplant rejection or a severe course with a sometimes fatal outcome. Vaccination is an appropriate means of reducing morbidity and mortality caused by vaccine-preventable diseases. Unfortunately, due to the disease or its course, it is not always possible to establish adequate vaccine protection against live-attenuated viral vaccines (LAVVs) prior to transplantation. LAVVs such as measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) are still contraindicated in solid organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy (IST), thus creating a dilemma.

AIM

This review discusses whether, when, and how live-attenuated MMR vaccines can be administered effectively and safely to pediatric liver transplant recipients based on the available data.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed for literature on live-attenuated MMR vaccination in pediatric liver transplantation (LT).

RESULTS

Nine prospective observational studies and three retrospective case series were identified in which at least 833 doses of measles vaccine were administered to 716 liver transplant children receiving IST. In these selected patients, MMR vaccination was well tolerated and no serious adverse reactions to the vaccine were observed. In addition, an immune response to the vaccine was demonstrated in patients receiving IST.

CONCLUSION

Due to inadequate vaccine protection in this high-risk group, maximum efforts must be made to ensure full immunization. MMR vaccination could also be considered for unprotected patients after LT receiving IST following an individual risk assessment, as severe harm from live vaccines after liver transplantation has been reported only very rarely. To this end, it is important to establish standardized and simple criteria for the selection of suitable patients and the administration of the MMR vaccine to ensure safe use.

Characteristics of Anti-Measles Immunity in Lung Transplant Candidates

Measles has not yet been eradicated; therefore, its outbreaks are still reported throughout the world. Like any infection, measles is dangerous for immunocompromised patients. Levels of anti-measles IgG antibodies were measured in 157 patients aged 17 to 72, who were placed on the lung transplant waiting list. Measurements were undertaken by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using the VectoMeasles-IgG kit (Russia). The proportion of patients seronegative for measles was 19% (30/157). Correlation was detected between patients' age and their levels of anti-measles antibodies, with higher proportions of patients having undetectable titers (25.5-28.9%) or low antibody levels (38.3-44.4%) in the young age groups (17-29 and 30-39 years old). There were no differences between male and female patients in levels of anti-measles antibodies or in the proportion of seronegative individuals. Analyses of antibody levels with regard to type of disease revealed the highest rate of seronegative results in cystic fibrosis patients (34.4%, 11/32). Overall, 19% of lung transplant candidates, mostly young people and cystic fibrosis patients, did not have protective immunity against measles.

Immunization of Solid Organ Transplant Candidates and Recipients: A 2022 Update

Immunizations are a relatively safe and cost-effective intervention to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with vaccine preventable infection (VPIs). As such, immunizations are a critical part of the care of pre and posttransplant patients and should be prioritized. New tools are needed to continue to disseminate and implement the most up-to-date vaccine recommendations for the SOT population. These tools will help both primary care providers and multi-disciplinary transplant team members taking care of transplant patients to stay abreast of evidence-based best practices regarding the immunization of the SOT patient.

Hepatitis A hospitalizations among kidney transplant recipients in the United States: nationwide inpatient sample 2005-2014

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the hospitalization rate for Hepatitis A virus (HAV) among kidney transplant (KTx) recipients and its outcomes as well as resource utilization.

METHODS

The 2005-2014 National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all hospitalized KTx recipients with an associated diagnosis of HAV. The hospital mortality, resource utilization, and associated liver conditions were compared between patients with and without HAV, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of 871 024 KTx recipients identified, 204 had HAV. The overall inpatient prevalence of HAV in KTx recipients over 10 years in the United States was 23.42 cases per 100 000 admissions. There were no statistically significant changes in the inpatient prevalence of HAV in KTx recipients during the study period (P = 0.77), ranging from 9.2 to 34.3 per 100 000 admissions. Among hospitalized KTx recipients with HAV, 27.9% were from Northeast, 29.2% were from Midwest, 23.8% were from South, and 19.1% were from West. HAV was not significantly associated with increased hospital mortality, multiorgan failure, need for abdominal ultrasound, hospital length of stay, and total hospitalization costs and charges when compared with those without HAV. However, it is significantly associated with increased ICU stay, coexisting hepatitis B and C infection, and liver failure.

CONCLUSION

Overall, inpatient prevalence of HAV in KTx recipients in the United States (years 2005-2014) was 23.42 cases per 100 000 admissions. Hospitalization for HAV after KTx is associated with increased ICU stay, coexisting hepatitis B and C infection, and liver failure.

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.

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.