Live virus immunization after orthotopic liver transplantation

Long-term persistence of seroprotection against measles following measles-mumps-rubella vaccination administered before and after pediatric liver transplantation

Liver transplant (LT) recipients are susceptible to infections, including measles. Concerns about the safety and efficacy of live-attenuated vaccines, such as the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, have led to hesitancy among providers in administering them to immunocompromised patients. This 9-year interventional study assessed seroprotection against measles following MMR vaccination in pediatric LT recipients. Of 119 participants enrolled, 60 (50%) were seroprotected against measles after transplantation. Among the 59 non-seroprotected participants, 56 fulfilled safety criteria and received MMR vaccination with a seroprotection rate of 90% (95%CI 73-98%) after a first dose, 95% (95%CI 85-99%) after primary vaccination with 1 to 3 doses, comparable to non-immunocompromised populations. However, measles antibodies declined over time, suggesting the need for regular monitoring, and booster doses. Half of the vaccinees (26/53, 49%) subsequently lost seroprotection. Among them, 23 received additional doses of MMR, with high seroconversion rate. At their last follow up (median 6.1 years, IQR 3.0-8.1 after inclusion), 63% (95%CI 49-75%) of all vaccinees were seroprotected against measles. In conclusion, MMR vaccination in pediatric LT recipients offers seroprotection against measles, but long-term immunity should be monitored closely. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (Clinicaltrials.gov) number NCT01770119.

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.

Parent and healthcare provider views of live varicella vaccination of pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Live attenuated varicella vaccine (LAVV) has historically been contraindicated in children who are immunocompromised due to solid organ transplant (SOT) because of safety concerns. Recently, clinical guidelines were developed that support post-transplant varicella vaccination in selected SOT recipients based on emerging evidence of LAVV safety. This qualitative study sought to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing the new guidelines, as well as acceptability of LAVV among healthcare providers (HCPs) and parents.

METHODS

HCPs and parents of transplant recipients were recruited from four sites using purposive sampling. Data from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using an Interpretive Description approach that incorporated data from the interviews, academic knowledge and clinical experience, and drew from Grounded Theory and Thematic Analysis. The theoretical framework used was Adaptive Leadership.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants (16 HCPs and 18 parents) were included in the analysis. Parents developed skills in adaptive leadership that included strategies to protect their child against infectious diseases. Foundational information that live vaccines were absolutely contraindicated post-transplant "stuck" with parents and led them to develop strategies other than vaccination to keep their child safe. Some parents struggled to understand that information previously presented as a certainty (contraindication of LAVV) could change. Their approach to adaptive leadership informed their appraisal of the new vaccination guidelines and willingness to accept vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs should adopt a family-centered approach to communicating changing guidelines that considers parents' approach to adaptive leadership and discusses the changing nature of medical evidence. Trust between HCPs and parents can facilitate these conversations.

Live attenuated vaccines in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents

The use of live attenuated vaccines in patients with immunosuppressive agents is contraindicated in package inserts and guidelines in Japan and other countries. However, patients receiving immunosuppressants have a high risk of infectious disease becoming severe, and the necessity to prevent infectious disease is high. To date, 2,091 vaccinations have been reported in 25 reports of live attenuated vaccines in people receiving immunosuppressants. Twenty-three patients (1.1%) became infected with the virus strain used in the vaccine, which was varicella virus in 21 patients. No reports have described life-threatening complications. A prospective study at the National Center for Child Health and Development conducted under certain immunological conditions (CD4 cell count ≥ 500/mm3, stimulation index of lymphocyte blast transformation by phytohemagglutinin (PHA) ≥ 101.6, serum immunoglobulin G ≥ 300 mg/dL) confirmed the serological effectiveness and safety. The evidence suggests that live attenuated vaccines can be used even in combination with immunosuppressants. Further evidence must be gathered and immunological criteria investigated to determine the conditions for safe use. Depending on the results of these investigations, the wording in package inserts and guidelines may need to be revised.

Safety and immunogenicity of the live-attenuated varicella vaccine in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of live-attenuated varicella vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Medline and EMBASE were searched using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. The included articles reported varicella vaccine administration in the posttransplant period in children and adults. A pooled proportion of transplant recipients who seroconverted and who developed vaccine-strain varicella and varicella disease was generated. Eighteen articles (14 observational studies and 4 case reports) were included, reporting on 711 transplant recipients who received the varicella vaccine. The pooled proportion was 88.2% (95% confidence interval 78.0%-96.0%, 13 studies) for vaccinees who seroconverted, 0% (0%-1.2%, 13 studies) for vaccine-strain varicella, and 0.8% (0%-4.9%, 9 studies) for varicella disease. Most studies followed clinical guidelines for administering live-attenuated vaccines, with criteria that could include being at least 1 year posttransplant, 2 months postrejection episode, and on low-dose immunosuppressive medications. Varicella vaccination in transplant recipients was overall safe in the included studies, with few cases of vaccine-strain-induced varicella or vaccine failure, and although it was immunogenic, the proportion of recipients who seroconverted was lower than that seen in the general population. Our data support varicella vaccination in select pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.

Spotting a potential threat: Measles among pediatric solid organ transplantation recipients

BACKGROUND

Low-vaccination rates worldwide have led to the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable infections, including measles. Immunocompromised patients, including pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, are at risk for measles because of suboptimal vaccination, reduced or waning vaccine immunity, lifelong immunosuppression, and global re-emergence of measles.

OBJECTIVES

To review published cases of measles in pediatric SOT recipients to heighten awareness of its clinical manifestations, summarize diagnostic and treatment strategies, and identify opportunities to optimize prevention.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of published natural measles infections in SOT recipients ≤21 years of age, summarizing management and outcomes. We describe measles epidemiology, recommended diagnostics, treatment, and highlight prevention strategies.

RESULTS

There are seven published reports of measles infection in 12 pediatric SOT recipients, the majority of whom were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Subjects had atypical or severe clinical presentations, including lack of rash and complications, most frequently with encephalitis and pneumonitis, resulting in 33% mortality. Updated recommendations on testing and vaccination are provided. Treatment options beyond supportive care and vitamin A are limited, with no approved antivirals.

CONCLUSION

While measles is infrequently reported in pediatric SOT recipients, morbidity and mortality remain significant. A high index of suspicion is warranted in susceptible SOT recipients with clinically compatible illness or exposure. Providers must recognize this risk, educate families, and be aware of both classic and atypical presentations of measles to rapidly identify, isolate, and diagnose measles in pediatric SOT recipients. Continued efforts to optimize measles vaccination both pre- and post-SOT are warranted.

Low post-transplant measles and varicella titers among pediatric liver transplant recipients: A 10-year single-center study

BACKGROUND

Vaccine preventable illnesses are important sources of morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs in pediatric LT recipients. Our aim was to measure the seroprevalence of antibodies to measles and VZV in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 44 patients who received LT before age 18 at UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital from January 2008 to December 2017.

RESULTS

Median age at transplantation was 2.5 years (IQR 1.2-7.7). Post-transplant measles antibodies were present in 17 of 37 patients (46%); risk factors for seronegativity included younger age at transplant (p = .02) and greater time from transplant to testing (p = .04). Post-transplant VZV antibodies were present in 17 of 39 patients (44%); risk factors for seronegativity included greater time from transplant to testing (p = .04). 6 of 16 patients (38%) who tested positive for pre-transplant VZV antibodies tested negative after transplantation. Fourteen of 20 patients (70%) with at least 1 documented dose of the MMR vaccine tested positive for post-transplant measles antibodies. Ten of 20 of patients (50%) with at least 1 documented dose of the VZV vaccine tested positive for post-transplant VZV antibodies. We also describe 10 patients who received post-transplant measles and VZV vaccines without documented complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that pediatric LT patients are at greater risk of contracting measles and VZV despite vaccination status, and that prevalence of measles and VZV antibodies decreases as time from transplantation increases. This should weigh into the institutional risk-benefit assessment when deciding whether or not to administer LAVs to these patients.

Live virus vaccination following pediatric liver transplantation: Outcomes from two academic children's hospitals

Pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients are often transplanted at a young age, precluding them from receiving live virus vaccinations (LVV) such as varicella (VZV) vaccine and measles, mumps and rubella. This places them at profound risk for vaccine preventable illness. We sought to detail safety of vaccination. This was a retrospective cohort study of pediatric LT recipients at two children's hospitals. Among 204 LT recipients included in the study, 97 received at least one LVV after LT. Six patients who did not receive LVV after transplant had evidence of vaccine-preventable infection following vaccination (one disseminated VZV disease, five VZV-related rash), while one patient who received LVV after transplant developed a diffuse VZV-related rash. Rejection rates were the same between those that did and did not receive a live virus vaccine post-transplant. There were no serious adverse events caused by vaccination post-transplant. LVV following LT was safe at our two institutions, although there exist limitations in our study due to its retrospective study design. Larger scale studies should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of LVV in relation to immunosuppression.

Quality improvement project to improve vaccinations in the pediatric liver transplant population

OBJECTIVES

A quality improvement approach was used to increase pediatric liver transplant recipient live and inactive vaccination rates by assessing titers and recommending vaccinations.

METHODS

A new screening and immunization process for both live and inactive vaccines was discussed with families at their annual visit. Antibody titers for varicella, measles, mumps, rubella, Haemophilus influenzae type B, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B were obtained. Specific criteria were developed for live virus vaccination candidacy. Vaccines were recommended based on patient titers and vaccination candidacy criteria. Surveillance for adverse effects to live vaccines was performed. Repeat titers were obtained approximately 1-month post-vaccine administration.

RESULTS

After PDSA cycle 1, 99% (71/72) of pediatric liver transplant patients had titers obtained. Live vaccines were recommended for 32 patients and 16 (50%) were vaccinated. Inactive vaccines were recommended to 64 patients, and 31 (48%) were vaccinated. Eight of 13 (62%) patients with follow-up titers achieved immunity for inactive vaccines. Zero patients had an adverse reaction to any live vaccine. Ten of 12 (83%) patients with follow-up titers achieved immunity from live vaccines. The most common barriers to receive live vaccines included not scheduling appointment with primary care provider (n = 3) and "non-vaccinators" (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Administering live and inactive vaccines to select pediatric liver transplant patients appears to be safe and effective in our studied population. For PDSA cycle 2, we will continue our current practice and consider offering vaccines in transplant clinic, since this was a barrier to vaccination identified during PDSA cycle 1.

Live Vaccines in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients: "To Give or Not to Give"

Content available: Author Audio Recording.

Safety of LAVs administered after pediatric LT

Recent guidelines suggest that LAVs may be given to LT recipients meeting certain criteria. However, information is still limited. We sought to evaluate the safety of LAVs, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella to LT recipients following our clinically based immunization protocol for LT recipients. We conducted a case-series analysis on safety of LAVs for measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps given to LT recipients at our institution from July 2010 to July 2019. Patients who underwent LT at age <20 years who visited our immunization clinic were included. LT recipients were vaccinated if 2 years had lapsed from LT, had no signs of rejection within 6 months, and were on minimal immunosuppressants. Patient demographics, underlying diseases, type and number of vaccines administered, date of vaccination, and adverse events occurring within 4 weeks after vaccination were extracted from their medical records. During the study period, LAVs were administered 422 times to 209 patients who met criteria and included 225 doses of MR combination vaccine, 224 doses of varicella vaccine, and 215 doses of mumps vaccine. Underlying diseases included cholestatic liver diseases (n = 125), followed by metabolic diseases (n = 33) and acute liver failure (n = 19). Nine non-critical adverse events (2.1%) possibly associated with LAVs were reported, but there were no serious adverse events, including hospitalizations or deaths. In conclusion, LAVs administered to LT recipients were safe without any serious adverse events following our relatively simple institutional protocol.

Live attenuated vaccines under immunosuppressive agents or biological agents: survey and clinical data from Japan

Live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated for patients on immunosuppressive agents or biological agent, except for live attenuated varicella vaccine, although previous reports showed their effectiveness and safety. This study is the nationwide cross-sectional research about the current utilization of live attenuated vaccines for patients on immunosuppressive agents or biological agents in Japan. We sent questionnaires to pediatric centers and examined whether each institution offered live attenuated vaccines to patients with immunosuppressive agents or biological agents (institutional research). We also examined adverse events associated with live attenuated vaccines between 2013 and 2017 (patient research). In the institutional research, 46 out of 334 institutions (13.8%) administered live attenuated vaccines to patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. In contrast, only six out of 270 institutions (2.2%) administered live attenuated vaccines to patients receiving biological agents. However, 66.3% of physicians answered that patients receiving immunosuppressive agents should be immunized with live attenuated vaccines, and only 7.0% disagreed with them. In the patient research, data for 781 patients were collected. Vaccine-associated infections were observed in only two patients (0.3%), both of whom had varicella, although they recovered promptly. No life-threatening adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

In pediatric centers, the demand for live attenuated vaccines in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents was high and most physicians think they should be immunized. Immunization with live attenuated vaccines appeared safe in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents, although further studies are needed for patients receiving biological agents What is known: • Live attenuated vaccines (LAV) are generally contraindicated for patients on immunosuppressive agents (IS) or biological agents (BA), except for live attenuated varicella vaccine, as immunocompromised patients are at greater risk for serious viral infection from the vaccine strains. • Viral infections, such as measles and varicella, cause serious complications in children receiving IS. • Several previous reports showed that LAV is relatively effective and safe for patients receiving IS. What is new: • In Japan, the demand for LAV in patients receiving IS was high, and most physicians hoped they should be immunized. • Vaccine-associated infection is rarely observed in patients with IS after LAV administration. • Immunization with LAV appeared safe in patients receiving IS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000029176.Date of registration: 2017/09/19.

Safety and efficacy of early vaccination with live attenuated measles vaccine for hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Vaccination with the live attenuated measles vaccine is currently recommended two years after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and generally contraindicated after solid organ transplantation (SOT) due to safety concerns. However, in the last few years new data on the administration of the measles vaccine to HSCT recipients less two years post-transplantation and to SOT recipients have become available. This new data may change current guidelines and practices. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the current data on the safety and efficacy of early measles vaccination for HSCT- and SOT recipients.

METHOD

PubMed and EMBASE were searched from the earliest date available through October 2019 to identify all research that reported on the safety and efficacy of measles vaccination after SOT or less than two years after HSCT.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies was included in this review. In the six studies that evaluated the efficacy of measles vaccination after SOT, seroconversion rates ranged from 41 to 100% after one dose and 73 to 100% after two doses. In the four studies that evaluated the efficacy of measles vaccination less than two years after HSCT, seroconversion rates ranged from 33 to 100% after one dose and 100% after two doses. In all studies, the administration of the measles vaccine after transplantation was considered to be safe. There were no cases of infection with the attenuated vaccine strain, and there were no adverse events related to the vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Data on the administration of the measles vaccine after SOT and less than two years after HSCT is scarce. However, the current data available suggest that it is efficacious and well tolerable. Therefore, early measles vaccination could be considered in selected groups of SOT- and HSCT recipients during increased measles transmission or an outbreak setting.

Immunization status and hospitalization for vaccine-preventable and non-vaccine-preventable infections in liver-transplanted children

BACKGROUND

Infections and associated morbidity and mortality may be more frequent in children who have undergone liver transplant than in healthy children. Immunization strategies to prevent vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs) can effectively minimize this infection burden. However, data on age-appropriate immunization and VPIs in children after liver transplant in Asia are limited.

AIM

To evaluate the immunization status, VPIs and non-VPIs requiring hospitalization in children who have undergone a liver transplant.

METHODS

The medical records of children who had a liver transplant between 2004 and 2018 at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) were retrospectively reviewed. Immunization status was evaluated via their vaccination books. Hospitalization for infections that occurred up to 5 years after liver transplantation were evaluated, and divided into VPIs and non-VPIs. Hospitalizations for cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus were excluded. Severity of infection, length of hospital stay, ventilator support, intensive care unit requirement, and mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven children with a mean age of 3.29 ± 4.17 years were included in the study, of whom 41 (53.2%) were female. The mean follow-up duration was 3.68 ± 1.45 years. Fortyeight children (62.3%) had vaccination records. There was a significant difference in the proportion of children with incomplete vaccination according to Thailand’s Expanded Program on Immunization (52.0%) and accelerated vaccine from Infectious Diseases Society of America (89.5%) (P < 0.001). Post-liver transplant, 47.9% of the children did not catch up with age-appropriate immunizations. There were 237 infections requiring hospitalization during the 5 years of follow-up. There were no significant differences in hospitalization for VPIs or non-VPIs in children with complete and incomplete immunizations. The risk of serious infection was high in the first year after receiving a liver transplant, and two children died. Respiratory and gastrointestinal systems were common sites of infection. The most common pathogens that caused VPIs were rotavirus, influenza virus, and varicella-zoster virus.

CONCLUSION

Incomplete immunization was common pre- and post-transplant, and nearly all children required hospitalization for non-VPIs or VPIs within 5 years post-transplant. Infection severity was high in the first year post-transplant.

Care of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: An Overview for Primary Care Providers

As the number of living pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients continues to grow, there is an increased likelihood that primary care providers (PCPs) will encounter pediatric SOT recipients in their practices. In addition, as end-stage organ failure is replaced with chronic medical conditions in transplant recipients, there is a need for a comprehensive approach to their management. PCPs can significantly enhance the care of immunosuppressed hosts by advising parents of safety considerations and avoiding adverse drug interactions. Together with subspecialty providers, PCPs are responsible for ensuring that appropriate vaccinations are given and can play an important role in the diagnosis of infections. Through early recognition of rejection and posttransplant complications, PCPs can minimize morbidity. Growth and development can be optimized through frequent assessments and timely referrals. Adherence to immunosuppressive regimens can be greatly improved through reinforcement at every encounter, particularly among adolescents. PCPs can also improve long-term outcomes by easing the transition of pediatric SOT recipients to adult providers. Although guidelines exist for the primary care management of adult SOT recipients, comprehensive guidance is lacking for pediatric providers. In this evidence-based overview, we outline the main issues affecting pediatric SOT recipients and provide guidance for PCPs regarding their management from the first encounter after the transplant to the main challenges that arise in childhood and adolescence. Overall, PCPs can and should use their expertise and serve as an additional layer of support in conjunction with the transplant center for families that are caring for a pediatric SOT recipient.

Management and prevention of varicella and measles infections in pediatric solid organ transplant candidates and recipients: An IPTA survey of current practice

BACKGROUND

Varicella and measles infections can be life-threatening after solid organ transplantation (SOT) but may be preventable with live-attenuated vaccines (LAV).

METHODS

This survey conducted in January 2019 among subscribers of the International Pediatric Transplantation Association listserv aimed to explore the current strategies to prevent and manage both infections in the pediatric SOT population, including recommending LAV after SOT.

RESULTS

The answers given by 95 pediatric SOT healthcare workers show that these strategies are not yet optimal and call for further education. In particular, 59% of respondents are unnecessarily waiting for a SOT candidate to be >1 year of age to start administrating LAV before SOT. Interestingly, most respondents are willing to administer LAV after SOT (57%), and a fifth (21%) are already doing so, off-label. The survey queried the precautions taken to improve safety evaluations after LAV, and identified knowledge gaps and practitioners' concerns.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey could be used as a starting point for education and promotion of the safe administration of LAV in carefully selected SOT recipients; in turn, this would increase available data that would contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines by the transplant societies and ultimately prevent these infections after SOT.

A community divided: Post-transplant live vaccine practices among Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) centers

BACKGROUND

Historically, the IDSA and the AST have recommended that live vaccines not be administered post-transplant due to concern for induction of vaccine-strain disease in immunocompromised hosts. However, recent prospective studies and revised AST guidelines published in April 2019 suggest that in the current era of immunosuppression minimization, live vaccines may be safely administered to select transplant recipients with resulting immunoprotection. The goal of this study was to assess current post-transplant live vaccine practices at individual pediatric liver transplant centers following the updated AST guidelines.

METHODS

A six-item email survey detailing center-specific post-transplant live vaccine practices followed by up to three response-specific questions were distributed between July 2019 and May 2020 to a representative from each center participating in the SPLIT consortium.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 93% (41/44 centers). Only 29% (12/41) of centers offer live vaccines post-transplant; each of these 12 centers uses different eligibility criteria for live vaccines. There was no difference between large (ten or more transplants per year) and small (less than ten transplants per year) centers in likelihood to offer live vaccines post-transplant. The main reasons for a center not offering post-transplant live vaccines were safety concerns and inability to reach group consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of pediatric liver transplant centers are reluctant to offer live vaccines post-transplant despite the updated AST guidelines. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to confirm safety and immunogenicity of live vaccines post-transplant.

Prospective study of live attenuated vaccines for patients receiving immunosuppressive agents

Patients receiving immunosuppressive agents are at risk of life-threatening infections. However, live vaccines are generally contraindicated in them. We conducted a prospective study regarding live attenuated vaccines for them. Patients elder than one year of age with immunosuppressive agents who showed negative or borderline antibody titers (virus-specific IgG levels < 4.0) against one or more of measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps and fulfilled the criteria (CD4 cell counts ≥ 500/mm3, stimulation index of lymphocyte blast transformation by PHA ≥ 101.6, serum IgG level ≥ 300 mg/dl, no steroid use or prednisolone < 1 mg/kg/day or < 2 mg/kg/2 days, trough levels of tacrolimus or cyclosporine were < 10 ng/ml or < 100 ng/ml and under good control of primary disease) were enrolled. Sixty-four vaccinations were administered to 32 patients. The seroconversion rates for measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps were 80.0%, 100.0%, 59.1%, and 69.2%, respectively. No life-threatening adverse events were observed, although one patient suffered from vaccine-strain varicella who showed cellular and humoral immunodeficiency (CD4 cell counts = 511/mm3, stimulation index of lymphocyte blast transformation by PHA = 91.1, serum IgG level = 208 mg/dl). This girl was immunized before we established the criteria for vaccination. Immunization with live attenuated vaccines for patients receiving immunosuppressive agents might be effective and safe if their cellular and humoral immunological parameters are within normal levels. However, determining the criteria for vaccination by immunological parameters should be established to guarantee the safety of live vaccines in the future. Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000007710. The date of registration: 2012/4/13.

Medical care of liver transplant patients

INTRODUCTION

Liver transplantation is a life-changing event for patients and survival following transplantation has improved significantly since the first transplantation in 1967. Following liver transplantation, patients face a unique set of healthcare management decisions including transplantation-specific complications, recurrence of primary liver disease, as well as metabolic and malignancy concerns related to immunosuppression. As more patients with liver disease receive transplantation and live longer, understanding and managing these patients will require not only transplant specialist but also local subspecialist and primary care physicians.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers common issues related to the management of patients following liver transplantation including immunosuppression, liver allograft dysfunction, metabolic complications, as well as routine health maintenance such as immunizations and cancer screening.

EXPERT OPINION

Optimizing medical care for patients following liver transplant will benefit from ensuring all providers, not just transplant specialist, have a basic understanding of the common issues encountered in the post-transplant patient. This review provides an overview of common healthcare concerns and management options for patients following liver transplantation.

The Importance of Prioritizing Pre and Posttransplant Immunizations in an Era of Vaccine Refusal and Epidemic Outbreaks

Vaccine-preventable infections are occurring at epidemic rates both nationally and internationally. At the same time, rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal are increasing across the country leading to decreased herd immunity. For immunosuppressed transplant recipients, this situation poses great risk. Currently, 1 in 6 pediatric solid organ transplant recipients is hospitalized with a vaccine-preventable infection in the first 5 years posttransplant. For many recipients, these infections result in significant morbidity, mortality, and increased hospitalization costs. Surprisingly, despite this risk many transplant recipients are not up-to-date on age appropriate immunizations at the time of transplant and thereafter. As a transplant community, we must prioritize immunizations in both pre and posttransplant care. Research is needed to understand how to monitor immune response to vaccines in immunosuppressed patients and when to optimally immunize patients posttransplant. Finally, recommendations about administration of live vaccines posttransplant may need to be reevaluated in the setting of measles outbreaks and decreased herd immunity.

Immunity to Vaccine-preventable Viral Infections in Australians Being Evaluated for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Vaccine-preventable viral infections are associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Current guidelines recommend routine screening and vaccination of all patients before solid organ transplantation. We studied rates of immunity against vaccine-preventable viruses in liver transplantation (LT) recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied consecutive adult patients who underwent first deceased donor LT at a single center between August 2008 and October 2017. Viruses studied were hepatitis A (HAV), hepatitis B (HBV), varicella zoster virus (VZV), measles, and mumps. Hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) <10 IU/mL in HBV surface antigen-negative patients and negative IgG to other viruses was regarded as absent immunity.

RESULTS

Five hundred and fifty-five patients underwent LT (72.4% male; median age, 55.0 y). Percentages of patients who lacked immunity to vaccine-preventable infections were HAV (31.8%), HBV (63.8%), measles (1.4%), mumps (6.6%), and VZV (3.8%). Age was positively associated with immunity (from either past exposure or vaccination) against most viruses, including HAV, measles, mumps, and VZV (P < 0.05 for all). In contrast, older age was marginally associated with anti-HBs <10 IU/mL (P = 0.046). No significant changes in immunity rates were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients undergoing LT are not immune to vaccine-preventable viruses at the time of assessment. This presents an opportunity for pre-LT vaccination and in particular younger patients may need to be targeted.

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.

Practical Guide to Vaccination in All Stages of CKD, Including Patients Treated by Dialysis or Kidney Transplantation

Infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those receiving maintenance dialysis or with a kidney transplant. Although responses to vaccines are impaired in these populations, immunizations remain an important component of preventative care due to their favorable safety profiles and the high rate of infection in these patients. Most guidelines for patients with CKD focus on the importance of the hepatitis B, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines in addition to age-appropriate immunizations. More data are needed to determine the clinical efficacy of these immunizations and others in this population and define optimal dosing and timing for administration. Studies have suggested that there may be a benefit to immunization before the onset of dialysis or transplantation because patients with early-stage CKD generally have higher rates of seroconversion. Because nephrologists often serve as primary care physicians for patients with CKD, it is important to understand the role of vaccinations in the preventive care of this patient population.

Measles, mumps, rubella (vaccine) and varicella vaccines in pediatric liver transplant: An initial analysis of post-transplant immunity

Varicella and measles infection represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for pediatric LT recipients. We evaluated the prevalence and correlates of post-transplant immunity in pediatric LT recipients previously immunized against measles (n = 72) and varicella (n = 67). Sixteen of seventy-two (22%) patients were measles non-immune, and 42/67 (63%) were varicella non-immune after LT. Median time from LT to titers for measles and varicella was 4.0 and 3.3 years, respectively. In the measles cohort, non-immune patients received fewer pretransplant vaccine doses (P = 0.026) and were younger at both time of vaccination (P = 0.006) and LT (P = 0.004) compared with immune patients. Upon multivariable analysis, weight > 10 kg at LT (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.27-27.41) and technical variant graft (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.37) were independently, significantly associated with measles immunity. In the varicella cohort, non-immune patients received fewer pretransplant vaccine doses (P = 0.028), were younger at transplant (P = 0.022), and had less time lapse between their last vaccine and transplant (P = 0.012) compared with immune patients. Upon multivariate analysis, time > 1 year from last vaccine to LT was independently, significantly associated with varicella immunity (OR 3.78, CI 1.30-11.01). This study demonstrates that non-immunity to measles and varicella is a prevalent problem after liver transplantation in children and identifies 3 unique risk factors for non-immunity in this high-risk population.

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.

Multimodal safety assessment of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination after pediatric liver transplantation

Live-attenuated vaccines are currently contraindicated in solid-organ transplant recipients. However, the risk of vaccine-preventable infections is lifelong, and can be particularly severe after transplantation. In this prospective interventional national cohort study, 44 pediatric liver transplant recipients with measles IgG antibodies <150 IU/L (below seroprotection threshold) received measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) at a median of 6.3 years posttransplantation (interquartile range, 4.0 to 10.9). A maximum of two additional doses were administered in nonresponders or when seroprotection was lost. Vaccine responses occurred in 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-100) of patients. Seroprotection at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up reached 62% (95% CI, 45-78), 86% (95% CI, 70-95), and 89% (95% CI, 67-99), respectively. All patients responded appropriately to the booster dose(s). Vaccinations were well tolerated and no serious adverse event attributable to vaccination was identified during the 8-week follow-up period (or later), using a multimodal approach including standardized telephone interviews, diarized side effect reporting, and monitoring of vaccinal virus shedding. We conclude that live attenuated MMR vaccine can be administered in liver transplant recipients fulfilling specific eligibility criteria (>1 year posttransplantation, low immunosuppression, lymphocyte count ≥0.75 G/L), inducing seroprotection in most subjects. (Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01770119).

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

This article discusses the recommended vaccines used before and after solid organ transplant period, including data regarding vaccine safety and efficacy and travel-related vaccines. Vaccination is an important part of the preparation for solid organ transplantation, because vaccine-preventable diseases contribute to the morbidity and mortality of these patients. A pretransplantation protocol should be encouraged in every transplant center. The main goal of vaccination is to provide seroprotection before transplantation, because iatrogenically immunosuppressed patients posttransplant have a lower seroresponse to vaccines.

An Update in Antimicrobial Therapies and Infection Prevention in Pediatric Lung Transplant Recipients

Lung transplantation can offer life-prolonging therapy to children with otherwise terminal end-stage lung disease. However, infectious complications, like those experienced by their adult counterparts, are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. These include bacteria, viruses, and fungi that infect the patient pretransplant and those that may be acquired from the donor or by the recipient in the months to years posttransplant. An understanding of the approach to the management of each potential infecting organism is required to ensure optimal outcomes. In particular, emphasis on aggressive preoperative management of infections in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis is important. These include multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and Mycobacterium abscessus, the posttransplant outcome of which depends on optimal pretransplant management, including vaccination and other preventive, antibiotic-sparing strategies. Similarly, increasing the transplant donor pool to meet rising transplant demands is an issue of critical importance. Expanded-criteria donors-those at increased risk of blood-borne viruses in particular-are increasingly being considered and transplants undertaken to meet the rising demand. There is growing evidence in the adult pool that these transplants are safe and associated with comparable outcomes. Pediatric transplanters are therefore likely to be presented with increased-risk donors for their patients. Finally, numerous novel antibiotic-sparing therapeutic approaches are on the horizon to help combat infections that currently compromise transplant outcomes.

Vaccines in pediatric transplant recipients-Past, present, and future

Infections significantly impact outcomes for solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children. Vaccine-preventable diseases contribute to morbidity and mortality in both early and late posttransplant time periods. Several infectious diseases and transplantation societies have published recommendations and guidelines that address immunization in adult and pediatric transplant recipients. In many cases, pediatric-specific studies are limited in size or quality, leading to recommendations being based on adult data or mixed adult-pediatric studies. We therefore review the current state of evidence for selected immunizations in pediatric transplant recipients and highlight areas for future investigation. Specific attention is given to studies that enrolled only children.

Prospective Study of Live Attenuated Vaccines for Patients with Nephrotic Syndrome Receiving Immunosuppressive Agents

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a prospective study to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of live attenuated vaccines in patients with nephrotic syndrome receiving immunosuppressive agents.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with nephrotic syndrome receiving immunosuppressive agents with negative or borderline antibody titers (virus-specific IgG levels <4.0) against measles, rubella, varicella, and/or mumps fulfilling the criteria of cellular and humoral immunity were enrolled. Virus-specific IgG levels were measured using an enzyme immunoassay. The primary endpoint was the seroconversion rate (ie, achievement of virus-specific IgG levels ≥4.0) at 2 months after vaccination. Virus-specific IgG levels at 1 year, breakthrough infections (wild-type infections), and adverse events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 116 vaccinations were administered to 60 patients. Seroconversion rates were 95.7% for measles, 100% for rubella, 61.9% for varicella, and 40.0% for mumps. More patients with a borderline antibody titer before vaccination achieved seroconversion than those with negative antibody titer, with statistical significance after varicella and mumps vaccination. The rate of patients who maintained seropositivity at 1 year after vaccination was 83.3% for measles, 94.1% for rubella, 76.7% for varicella, and 20.0% for mumps. No patient experienced breakthrough infection. No serious adverse events, including vaccine-associated infection, were observed.

CONCLUSION

Immunization with live attenuated vaccines may be immunogenic and is apparently safe in our cohort of patients with nephrotic syndrome receiving immunosuppressive agents if their cellular and humoral immunologic measures are within clinically acceptable levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR UMIN 000007710.

Safety of live vaccines on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy-a retrospective study in three Swiss Travel Clinics

BACKGROUND

Patients increasingly benefit from immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medications for a range of conditions allowing them a lifestyle similar to healthy individuals, including travel. However, the administration of live vaccines to immunodeficient patients bears the risk of replication of the attenuated vaccine microorganism. Therefore, live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppression. Data on live vaccinations on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medication are scarce. We identified all travellers seeking pre-travel advice in three Swiss travel clinics with a live vaccine during immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy to ascertain experienced side effects. A retrospective and multi-centre study design was chosen to increase the sample size.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the travel clinics of the University of Zurich; the Swiss TPH, Basel; and Geneva University Hospitals. Travellers on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy who received live vaccines [yellow fever vaccination (YFV), measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), varicella and/ or oral typhoid vaccination (OTV)] between 2008 and 2015 were identified and interviewed. A total of 60 age- and sex-matched controls (matched to Basel/Zurich travel clinics travellers) were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 197 patients were identified. And 116 patients (59%) and 60 controls were interviewed. YFV was administered 92 times, MMR 21 times, varicella 4 times and OTV 6 times to patients on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. Most common medications were corticosteroids (n = 45), mesalazine (n = 28) and methotrexate (n = 19). Live vaccines were also administered on biological treatment, e.g. TNF-alpha inhibitors (n = 8). Systemic reactions were observed in 12.2% of the immunosuppressed vs 13.3% of controls; local reactions in 7.8% of the immunosuppressed vs 11.7% of controls. In controls, all reactions were mild/moderate. In the immunosuppressed, 2/21 severe reactions occurred: severe local pain on interferon-beta and severe muscle/joint pain on sulfasalazine.

CONCLUSION

Safety of live vaccines given to immunosuppressed patients cannot be concluded. However, it is re-assuring that in the examined patient groups no serious side effects or infections by the attenuated vaccine strain occurred.

Immunizations in solid organ and hematopoeitic stem cell transplant patients: A comprehensive review

The Solid Organ Transplantation (SOT) and Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) population is continuously increasing as a result of broader indications for transplant and improved survival. Infectious diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases, are a significant threat for this population, primarily after but also prior to transplantation. As a consequence, clinicians must ensure that patients are optimally immunized before transplantation, to provide the best protection during the early post-transplantation period, when immunosuppression is the strongest and vaccine responses are poor. After 3-6 months, inactivated vaccines immunization can be resumed. By contrast, live-attenuated vaccines are lifelong contraindicated in SOT patients, but can be considered in HSCT patients at least 2 years after transplantation, if there is no immunosuppression or graft-versus-host-disease. However, because of the advantages of live-attenuated over inactivated vaccines--and also sometimes the absence of an inactivated alternative--an increasing number of prospective studies on live vaccine immunization after transplantation are performed and give new insights about safety and immunogenicity in this population.

Travel vaccination recommendations and endemic infection risks in solid organ transplantation recipients

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are often heavily immunosuppressed and consequently at risk of serious illness from vaccine preventable viral and bacterial infections or with endemic fungal and parasitic infections. We review the literature to provide guidance regarding the timing and appropriateness of vaccination and pathogen avoidance related to the immunological status of SOT recipients.

METHODS

A PUBMED search ([Vaccination OR vaccine] AND/OR ["specific vaccine"] AND/OR [immunology OR immune response OR cytokine OR T lymphocyte] AND transplant was performed. A review of the literature was performed in order to develop recommendations on vaccination for SOT recipients travelling to high-risk destinations.

RESULTS

Whilst immunological failure of vaccination in SOT is primarily the result of impaired B-cell responses, the role of T-cells in vaccine failure and success remains unknown. Vaccination should be initiated at least 4 weeks prior to SOT or more than 6 months post-SOT. Avoidance of live vaccination is generally recommended, although some live vaccines may be considered in the specific situations (e.g. yellow fever). The practicing physician requires a detailed understanding of region-specific endemic pathogen risks.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a vaccination and endemic pathogen guide for physicians and travel clinics involved in the care of SOT recipients. In addition, recommendations based on timing of anticipated immunological recovery and available evidence regarding vaccine immunogenicity in SOT recipients are provided to help guide pre-travel consultations.

Vaccinations, response, and controls before and after intestinal transplantation in children

Vaccination is an effective strategy to decrease infections in transplant recipients. Children after intestinal transplantation carry a high risk of infection due to increased immunosuppression. In a series of 22 children after intestinal transplantation, we studied the vaccination schedules and the antibodies against vaccine-preventable diseases before transplantation, and at one and five yr after transplantation. We reviewed whether the vaccination schedules were complete, and we analysed the factors that may influence serological immunity and the incidence of disease in patients with deficient immunity. All patients completed the recommended vaccination schedules for DTaP-IPV and HBV. After transplantation, the negative antibodies against vaccine-preventable diseases were mostly related to an antirejection therapy: for DTaP-IPV: four of four patients with no antibody had been treated for rejection, for HBV: two of five, HAV: three of four, MMR: three of seven, and VZV: three of four. A post-transplantation varicella infection was followed by acute rejection, with probability for a relationship between both events. We observed 50% of varicella cases in unvaccinated children, highlighting the importance of pretransplant vaccination. Waning immunogenicity mediated by antibodies against vaccine-preventable disease after transplantation indicated a need for boosters. The recommendations should be regularly enforced, as the reliance on routine immunizations schedules is not adequate in immunocompromised patients.

Infection Prevention and Control Issues After Solid Organ Transplantation

Infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Consequently, infection prevention is an essential component of any organ transplant program. Given their frequent and often prolonged contact with the healthcare system, solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for healthcare-associated infections, including those caused by antibiotic-resistant organisms. In this chapter we review several different healthcare-associated infections of importance to transplant recipients, including those caused by bacterial, viral, and fungal organisms. We also describe infection prevention and control strategies applicable to this patient population. These practices focus on clinical interventions and environmental controls designed to prevent the spread of potentially pathogenic organisms in the healthcare setting. We also describe post-exposure interventions applicable to solid organ transplant recipients exposed to potential pathogens in order to reduce their risk of subsequent infection.

Vaccine administration in children with chronic kidney disease

Pediatric patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) on conservative treatment, on dialysis, and those with renal transplantation are at a higher risk for infectious diseases as the result of impaired immune responses against infectious agents. Infections in these patients can have drastic consequences for disease morbidity and mortality. Immunization is a crucial preventive strategy for disease management in this pediatric population. However, vaccination coverage among children with CKD remains low due to safety concerns and doubts about vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. In this study, we reviewed why children with CKD are at higher risk of infections, the importance of vaccinations among these children, barriers to vaccinations, and recommend the best vaccination schedules. Overall, vaccines have acceptable immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles in children with CKD. However, in some cases, the protective antibody levels induced by vaccines and the benefits and risks of booster vaccine doses must be individually managed. Furthermore, close contacts and household members of these children should complete age-appropriate vaccination schedules to increase the child's indirect protection.

Live virus vaccines in transplantation: friend or foe?

Solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients may be exposed to diseases which may be prevented through live attenuated virus vaccines (LAVV). Because of their immunosuppression, these diseases can lead to severe complications in transplant recipients. Despite increasing evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of certain LAVV, these vaccines are still contraindicated for immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients. We review the available studies on LAVV, such as varicella zoster, measles-mumps-rubella, influenza, yellow fever, polio, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines in transplant patients. We discuss the current recommendations and the potential risks, as well as the expected benefits of LAVV immunization in this population.

Updated data on effective and safe immunizations with live-attenuated vaccines for children after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Although immunizations using live-attenuated vaccines are not recommended for children post-liver transplant due to their theoretical risks, they will inevitably encounter vaccine-preventable viral diseases upon returning to real-life situations. The window of opportunity for vaccination is usually limited prior to transplantation because these children often have unstable disease courses. Also, vaccine immunity does not always persist after transplantation.

METHODS

Beginning in 2002, subcutaneous immunizations with four individual live-attenuated vaccines (measles, rubella, varicella, and mumps) to pediatric patients following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were performed for those who fulfilled the clinical criteria, including humoral and cell-mediated immunity. Written informed consent was collected. We included the study on 70 immunizations for 18 cases that we reported in 2008 (Shinjoh et al., 2008).

RESULTS

A total of 196 immunizations were administered to 48 pediatric post-LDLT recipients. Of these, 144 were first immunizations and 52 were repeated immunizations following LDLT. The seroconversion rates at the first dose for measles (AIK-C), rubella (TO-336), varicella (Oka), and mumps (Hoshino) were 100% (36/36), 100% (35/35), 70% (23/33), and 75% (24/32), respectively. Antibody levels did not fall over time in patients immunized with rubella vaccine. Three mild cases of breakthrough varicella were observed. Two cases with transient parotid gland swelling were observed after mumps immunization. Two admissions because of fever at 2-3 weeks after the measles vaccine were reported but the patients had no symptoms of measles.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunizations using selected live-attenuated vaccines were safe and effective for post-LDLT children who were not severely immunosuppressed. However, with the exception of rubella, repeated immunization may be necessary.

Care of the liver transplant patient

OBJECTIVE

To provide an approach to the care of liver transplant (LT) patients, a growing patient population with unique needs.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed for guidelines and review articles using the keywords "liver transplantation", "long term complications" and "medical management" was conducted, resulting in 77 articles.

RESULTS

As a result of being on immunosuppression, LT recipients are at increased risk of infections and must be screened regularly for metabolic complications and malignancies.

DISCUSSION

Although immunosuppression is key to maintaining allograft health after transplantation, it comes with its own set of medical issues to follow. Physicians following LT recipients must be aware of the greater risk for hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, renal failure, metabolic bone disease and malignancies in these patients, all of whom require regular monitoring and screening. Vaccination, quality of life, sexual function and pregnancy must be specifically addressed in transplant patients.

Live viral vaccines in immunocompromised patients

ABSTRACT: 

Live-attenuated viral vaccines (LAV) have been used safely for several decades in healthy individuals to protect against diseases with great success. In immunocompromised hosts their use is usually not recommended. We explore the use of currently available LAV, such as live-attenuated influenza, varicella–zoster virus, measles, mumps and rubella, oral polio, rotavirus, yellow fever virus vaccines, especially in patients with cancer, solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, HIV, and with acquired or congenital immunodeficiencies. Although evidence-based recommendations cannot currently be made, it is possible that LAV will be recommended in specific, well-defined situations in these immunocompromised patients in the future.

2013 IDSA clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the immunocompromised host

An international panel of experts prepared an evidenced-based guideline for vaccination of immunocompromised adults and children. These guidelines are intended for use by primary care and subspecialty providers who care for immunocompromised patients. Evidence was often limited. Areas that warrant future investigation are highlighted.