Search

Background: While presumably less common with modern molecular diagnostic and imaging techniques, fever of unknown origin (FUO) remains a challenge in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Additionally, the impact of FUO on patient and graft survival is poorly described., Methods: A cohort of adult KTRs between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2018 was followed at the University of Wisconsin Hospital. Patients transplanted from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2005 were included in the "early era"; patients transplanted from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2018 were included in the "modern era". The primary objective was to describe the epidemiology and etiology of FUO diagnoses over time. Secondary outcomes included rejection, graft and patient survival., Results: There were 5590 kidney transplants at our center during the study window. FUO was identified in 323 patients with an overall incidence rate of .8/100 person-years. Considering only the first 3 years after transplant, the incidence of FUO was significantly lower in the modern era than in the early era, with an Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) per 100 person-years of .48; 95% CI: .35-.63; p < .001. A total of 102 (31.9%) of 323 patients had an etiology determined within 90 days after FUO diagnosis: 100 were infectious, and two were malignancies. In the modern era, FUO remained significantly associated with rejection (HR = 44.1; 95% CI: 16.6-102; p < .001) but not graft failure (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: .68-2.18; p = .52) total graft loss (HR = 1.17; 95% CI: .85-1.62; p = .34), or death (HR = 1.17; 95% CI: .79-1.76; p = .43., Conclusions: FUO is less common in KTRs during the modern era. Our study suggests infection remains the most common etiology. FUO remains associated with significant increases in risk of rejection, warranting further inquiry into the management of immunosuppressive medications in SOT recipients in the setting of FUO., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Studies conducted in the northern United States found cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after liver transplantation follows a seasonal pattern, with increased incidence in fall and winter. This has not been evaluated in kidney transplant recipients. Improved understanding of CMV seasonality may help guide use of preventative therapies., Methods: We evaluated adult patients receiving a kidney transplant at our center in Wisconsin from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2018. CMV event was defined as quantifiable viral replication with clinical signs or symptoms suspicious for CMV per current consensus recommendations. Seasons were divided as follows: winter (December-February), spring (March-May), summer (June-August), and fall (September-November). The primary objective was to evaluate the annual distribution of CMV disease and determine whether this differed by season., Results: There were 6151 kidney transplants in the study period. A total of 913 patients had 1492 episodes of CMV. Median time from transplant to first detection was 5.51 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2.87-11.7). The observed overall incidence exceeded the expected incidence in winter (+.7%), spring (+5.5%), and fall (+3.4%) and was less than expected in summer (-9.5%) (p = .18). The incidence of CMV during summer, however, was 21% less than expected (p = .001) in recipients who were CMV positive (R+) at the time of transplantation. No such difference was observed in CMV negative recipients (R-; p = .58)., Conclusion: CMV after kidney transplant appears to be less common during the summer season in patients who were R+ at transplant but does not follow seasonal variation in R-. Reasons for this are unclear but are likely related to CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity. These findings may have clinical implications, particularly the use of non-pharmacologic strategies to improve response to antiviral therapy., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The article discusses the efficacy of dose-reduced glecaprevir-pibrentasvir in lung transplant recipients on maintenance cyclosporine from donors with hepatitis C viremia. It highlights the successful treatment of two lung transplant recipients with HCV viremic donors using glecaprevir-pibrentasvir while on cyclosporine maintenance immunosuppression. The study emphasizes the importance of utilizing dose-reduced GLE-PIB to effectively treat HCV infection transmitted by donors in lung transplantation, providing a flexible and individualized approach to post-operative care. The collaborative effort of various specialists is crucial for the success of such treatment strategies in expanding the donor pool and increasing transplantation accessibility. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: To evaluate epidemiology, risk‐factors, and outcomes of high‐level (HL) cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia in liver transplant recipients. Methods: Adult patients receiving a liver transplant between 1/1/2017 and 9/30/2020 were evaluated. Viral loads at University of Wisconsin Health Clinical Laboratories were required to allow for numerical comparison. Primary objective was incidence and outcomes of HL CMV viremia (viral‐load > 100 000 IU/ml). Secondary objective was to elucidate risk factors to allow targeted interventions. Results: Two hundred nine patients met inclusion criteria; 175 kept their graft for at least 240 days. Of these nine patients developed HL CMV, 28 developed low‐level (LL CMV, viral‐load 250–100 000 IU/ml), and 138 did not develop CMV viremia. When comparing these three groups via classic statistical methods time from transplant to viremia was similar (HL 158 ± 77 days, LL 150 ± 76 days). Clinical factors were also similar with the exception of donor seropositivity (HL 87.5%, LL 70.4%, No CMV 49.6%, p = 0.025). HL CMV was significantly associated with graft loss (p < 0.0001) on Kaplan–Meier analysis; graft loss in the LL CMV group did not differ from the no CMV group (p = 0.96). To allow valid assessment of risk factors in the total study population (n = 209), models of time‐varying covariates were used, and Cox proportional hazards ratios were calculated. In this analysis, HL CMV was associated with a significantly increased risk of graft loss (HR 5.6, p = 0.0016). When investigating risk factors associated with HL CMV, donor seropositivity significantly increased risk (HR 8.85, 95% CI 1.13–71.43, p = 0.038). Pretransplant total bilirubin (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.998–1.07, p = 0.06) trended toward significance. Recipient seronegativity, liver disease, clinical and allocation model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD), transplant surgery duration, age, sex, induction immunosuppression, and maintenance immunosuppression were not significantly associated with development of HL CMV. Conclusion: HL CMV after liver transplant is uncommon but is associated with a significantly increased risk of graft loss that is not present in those patients who develop LL CMV or do not develop CMV viremia. Given these negative graft effects, CMV stewardship interventions targeting recipients of CMV seropositive allografts are warranted. Future larger scale studies evaluating the potential role of other factors in risk stratification are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]