What’s Next for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis After Kidney Transplantation


In a randomized trial, letermovir was as effective as — but better tolerated than — valganciclovir.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seronegative recipients of kidney transplants from seropositive donors are at high risk for donor-to-recipient transmission of CMV and subsequent CMV disease. Universal prophylaxis with valganciclovir is highly effective in preventing CMV disease during the early post-transplant period, but leukopenia is common, resulting in discontinuation of prophylaxis or changes to the immunosuppressive regimen. Letermovir is a CMV-specific antiviral approved for prophylaxis after stem cell transplant. Now, researchers report results of a randomized noninferiority trial comparing letermovir to valganciclovir in CMV seronegative recipients of kidneys from seropositive donors.

In all, 601 participants received letermovir or valganciclovir for up to 200 days post-transplant. At 1 year, CMV disease developed in 10% (letermovir) versus 12% (valganciclovir) of recipients. No patient in the letermovir group developed letermovir resistance, compared with 12% valganciclovir resistance in the valganciclovir group. Drug discontinuation was more common in the valganciclovir arm (13% vs. 4%), primarily due to myelosuppression (64% vs. 26%).

Comment

When letermovir is used off-label to treat refractory or ganciclovir-resistant CMV, clinical failure and resistance have been observed (Transplantation 2020; 104:240. opens in new tab). Thus, it’s reassuring that letermovir resistance was not observed in this prophylaxis study. I plan to recommend letermovir for those recipients requiring CMV prophylaxis who cannot tolerate valganciclovir, although its high cost may limit its access. While this trial included only high-risk kidney recipients, extrapolating the results to other recipients of solid organ transplants is reasonable. Notably, on the basis of this study, the FDA recently approved letermovir for prevention of CMV disease in high-risk adult kidney transplant recipients. opens in new tab.


Newborn Recipient of Partial Heart Transplant Doing Well

A first-of-its-kind partial heart transplant in a neonate delivered valves that continue to grow and function beyond 1 year of age, researchers said.

The surgery was performed on the 18th day of life of a 5-pound newborn boy diagnosed prenatally with persistent truncus arteriosus and severe truncal valve dysfunction. The procedure involved transplantation of the part of the heart containing the aorta and pulmonary valves from an infant donor upon cardiac death.

The standard of care for neonatal heart valve implants are cadaver grafts. But these grafts are not viable and can’t grow or self-repair. Therefore, recipient neonates need to undergo repeated implant-exchange surgeries until an adult-sized heart valve can fit. Clinical outcomes generally are poor.

“We have learned that these partial heart transplant valves, when procured fresh and the [recipient] baby is placed on low-dose antirejection medicine, can grow with the child and function completely normally,” Joseph W. Turek, MD, PhD, MBA of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

photo of Joseph Turek, MD
Joseph W. Turek, MD

“This represents a new field in heart surgery that could dramatically change the way we care for children with poorly functioning heart valves by allowing valve implants that grow with them.”

A case report describing the novel intervention was published online on January 2, 2024, in JAMA.

‘Expected to Last a Lifetime’

The donor was a 2-day-old female weighing 8 pounds. Delivery had been complicated by hypoxic ischemic brain injury, but echocardiography showed structurally normal, functioning outflow heart valves. The heart was donated after cardiac death and procured using standard surgical techniques.

The recipient infant’s operation involved sternotomy, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cardioplegic arrest of the heart. The pulmonary artery ostia and coronary artery buttons were dissected, and the infant’s irreparable truncal valve was excised.

The donor aortic root was transplanted first, using donor tissue to close the ventricular septal defect. Then, the coronary artery buttons were reimplanted; the right ventricular outflow tract was enlarged; and the pulmonary root was transplanted. Postoperative immunosuppression followed.

On the follow-up at age 14 months, the transplanted valves showed no obstruction or insufficiency on echocardiography. Now, almost 21 months later, the recipient is doing well, Turek said. “His family has shared his many milestones with me, including eating his first birthday cake, videos of his first steps, and his newfound oral appetite (he was largely g-tube fed for a while).”

photo of Dr Joseph W. Turek, with the patient.
Joseph W. Turek, MD, with the patient.

“The rationale for partial heart transplant is that pediatric heart transplants grow,” Turek and coauthors wrote. “Moreover, failure of heart transplant outflow valves is exceedingly rare. While heart transplant long-term outcomes are limited by inevitable ventricular dysfunction, partial heart transplants spare the native ventricles and are therefore expected to last a lifetime.”

‘Domino Hearts’

“While this particular baby had truncus arteriosus, this operation should prove to be beneficial for a host of congenital heart conditions with valves that are either too small or poorly functioning,” Turek said. “We have performed subsequent partial heart operations for babies with aortic stenosistetralogy of Fallot with pulmonary atresia, and biventricular outflow tract obstruction.”

The challenge is organ availability, he noted. “While this procedure does make use of hearts that would be otherwise unusable for full heart transplant, such as hearts with poor ventricular function or hearts removed from recipients of full heart transplants (aka domino hearts), the availability is still low compared to the need.”

With domino hearts, “you could potentially double the number of hearts that are used for the benefit of children with heart disease,” Turek said in a Duke communication released with the paper. In a domino heart procedure, a patient who has healthy valves but needs stronger heart muscle receives a full heart transplant, and the healthy valves are then donated to another patient in need, creating a domino effect.

Since this breakthrough procedure in 2022, partial heart transplants have been performed 13 times at four centers, including nine at Duke, three of which used the domino technique.

For now, Turek told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, “we are hoping to receive funds for a clinical trial that will evaluate these partial heart transplant valves on a larger basis and determine an optimal antirejection dose necessary to maintain viability.”

This Selfless Supermom Has Decided To Give Birth To Her Baby With An Underdeveloped Brain And Donate Her Organs


Keri Young can feel her baby’s kick, hear her heartbeat like any other mother carrying around her baby. But unlike other mothers, however, she won’t get to see her daughter grow up.

 Eva, the name Keri kept for her unborn daughter, which means ‘life’, has a condition called anencephaly. 

The condition is an untreatable one where the brain of the embryo does not develop appropriately. It’s so rare that it only occurs in six births per every 1,000 births in the UK. Sadly, babies born with this condition tend to only tend to survive for a few days. 

Eva without brain MRI

Despite being told this 30 seconds after being diagnosed with Eva, Keri asked the doctors if it she could possibly continue with the pregnancy so that her organs could help save the life other babies who are in desperate need of organs.   

On a Facebook post, Keri wrote: “This is our daughter’s perfect heart. She has perfect feet and hands. She has perfect kidneys, perfect lungs, and a perfect liver. Sadly, she doesn’t have a perfect brain.”

“We found out recently she has anencephaly and is terminal. Faced with terrible options we have decided to continue the pregnancy to full term so Eva, which literally means life, can grow strong and give life to multiple people through organ donation.” 

Anencephaly

 “This was not an easy decision. For the next 20 weeks, I will feel her kick, have the hiccups and we’ll be able to hear her perfect heart beating all while knowing we’ll only get a few short hours with her when she’s born. As you might expect, we’re devastated but have an amazing support system with our family, friends, church and doctors. We’re choosing to try and see the positives in this situation and cherish our time with Eva, and be grateful for the impact she will have on the world in the short amount of time she’ll spend in it.”

Her husband, Royce Young, praised his wife and their son, Harrison, in a post he shared last Friday, which received thousands of comments from people who were touched by their story.

 “I thought back to the moment where we found out Eva wasn’t perfect, and how literally 30 seconds after our doctor told us our baby doesn’t have a brain, somehow through full-body ugly crying, Keri looked up and asked, “If I carry her full term, can we donate her organs?” he wrote.

“In literally the worst moment of her life, finding out her baby was going to die, it took her less than a minute to think of someone else and how her selflessness could help. It’s one of the most powerful things I’ve ever experienced.” 

Harrison Young

“Whenever Harrison gets hurt or has to pull a band-aid off or something, Keri will ask him, “Are you tough? Are you BRAVE?” And that little boy will nod his head and say, “I tough! I brave!” I’m looking at Keri right now and I don’t even have to ask. She’s TOUGH. She’s BRAVE. She’s incredible. She’s remarkable.”

“Not that I needed some awful situation like this to see all of that, but what it did was make me want to tell everyone else about it,” states Harrison. 

Are you an Organ Donor? Mayo Clinic Expert Discusses 5 Myths about Organ Donation.


April is Donate Life Month, a national recognition to help encourage Americans to register as organ, eye and tissue donors and to celebrate those who have saved lives through the gift of donation.

Donate Life Web Banner

Nationally, Mayo Clinic has over 3,000 patients on the waiting list for an organ transplant. In recognition of Donate Life Month, Brooks Edwards, M.D., director of the William J. von Liebig Center for Transplantation and Clinical Regeneration and a transplant cardiologist, is available to the media to answer common questions and address myths and misconceptions pertaining to organ donation.

Some common myths include:

Myth: If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won’t work as hard to save my life.

Fact: When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else’s. You’ll be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency, not by a doctor who performs transplants.
Myth: Organ donation is against my religion.

Fact: Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. This includes Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism and most Protestant faiths. If you’re unsure of or uncomfortable with your faith’s position on donation, ask a member of your clergy.

Myth: An open-casket funeral isn’t an option for people who have donated organs or tissues.

Fact: Organ and tissue donation doesn’t interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor’s body is clothed for burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation.

Myth: I’m too old or too sick to donate. Nobody would want my organs or tissues.

Fact: There’s no defined cutoff age for donating organs. The decision to use your organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age. And, very few medical conditions automatically disqualify you from donating organs. Don’t disqualify yourself prematurely. Let the doctors decide at your time of death whether your organs and tissues are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: Rich and famous people go to the top of the list when they need a donor organ.

Fact: The rich and famous aren’t given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else. The reality is that celebrity and financial status are not considered in organ allocation.

Why you should consider organ donation

More than 120,000 people are waiting for organ transplant in the United States. Nearly 2,000 of those are children. Every 10 minutes another name is added to the national waiting list. An average of 18 people die each day in the United States waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.

By donating your organs after you die, you can save or improve as many as 50 lives. And many families say that knowing their loved one helped save other lives helped them cope with their loss.

It’s especially important to consider becoming an organ donor if you belong to an ethnic minority. Minorities including African-Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Hispanics are more likely than whites to have certain chronic conditions that affect the kidney, heart, lung, pancreas and liver. Certain blood types are more prevalent in ethnic minority populations. Because matching blood type is usually necessary for transplants, the need for minority donor organs is especially high.

For kidney, liver and bone marrow transplant, living donors can help shorten the wait time for many patients. A living donor can sometimes start a chain of transplants, called a paired exchange, thereby saving not just one life, but several. For every recipient who can get an organ from a living donor, there is one fewer person on the waiting list, thereby giving the remaining people on the list a better chance and more hope of getting a transplant.

 

China to Stop Using Prisoners’ Organs for Transplants.


China will start phasing out its decades-long practice of using the organs of executed prisoners for transplant operations from November, a senior official said on Thursday, as it pushes to mandate the use of organs from ethical sources in hospitals.

China remains the only country in the world that still systematically uses organs extracted from executed prisoners in transplant operations, a practice that has drawn widespread international criticism. Many Chinese view the practice as a way for criminals to redeem themselves.

But officials have recently spoken out against the practice of harvesting organs from dead inmates, saying it “tarnishes the image of China.”

The health ministry will begin enforcing the use of organs from voluntary donors allocated through a fledging national program at a meeting set to be held in November, former deputy health minister Huang Jiefu, who still heads the ministry’s organ transplant office, told Reuters.

“I am confident that before long all accredited hospitals will forfeit the use of prisoner organs,” Huang said.

The first batch of all 165 Chinese hospitals licensed for transplants will promise to stop using organs harvested from death row inmates at the November meeting, he added. Huang did not specify the exact number.

MEETING “ACCEPTED ETHICAL STANDARDS

An Australian-trained liver transplant surgeon, Huang said the China Organ Transplant Committee will ensure that the “source of the organs for transplantation must meet the commonly accepted ethical standards in the world.”

That effectively means the use of prisoner organs at approved hospitals will come to an end, but the timeframe remains indefinite, he added.

China has launched pilot volunteer organ donor programs in 25 provinces and municipalities with the aim of creating a nationwide voluntary scheme by the end of 2013.

By the end of 2012, about 64% of transplanted organs in China came from executed prisoners and the number has dipped to under 54% so far this year, according to figures provided by Huang.

At a meeting in August last year, Huang, deputy health minister at the time, told officials that top leaders had decided to reduce dependency on prisoners’ organs, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Reuters.

Rights groups say many organs are taken from prisoners without their consent or their family’s knowledge, something the government denies.

So far, more than 1,000 organ donors have come through the new system, benefiting at least 3,000 patients, Huang said.

Voluntary organ donation in China has already risen from 63 cases in all of 2010 to a current average of 130 per month so far this year, Huang added.

However, not all donated organs are currently allocated through the new program, leaving room for human interference, one of the main challenges the reform faces.

Supply still falls far short of demand due in part to the traditional Chinese belief that bodies should be buried or cremated intact. An estimated 300,000 patients are waitlisted every year for organ transplants and only about one in 30 ultimately will receive a transplant.

The shortage has driven a trade in illegal organ trafficking and in 2007 the government banned organ transplants from living donors, except spouses, blood relatives and step or adopted family members.

 

Source: Medscape.com

 

 

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com

 

Transmission of Rabies Virus from an Organ Donor to Four Transplant Recipients.


Rabies is an acute encephalitis caused by viruses in the genus Lyssavirus, family Rhabdoviridae, that is nearly uniformly fatal in unvaccinated hosts. Although the virus is present in animal reservoirs, infection in humans is rare in the United States, with only two cases reported in 20031,2 and no more than six cases reported in any year in the past decade.3 The primary mode of transmission is through the bite of an infected animal, most commonly a bat in the United States.4 Although transmission of rabies virus from corneal transplants has previously been described,5 to our knowledge, no cases ascribed to organ or vascular-tissue transplants have been reported.

In May 2004, physicians at a hospital in Texas diagnosed encephalitis in three recipients of a liver and two kidneys from a common organ donor. It was later discovered that encephalitis also developed in a fourth patient, who had received a vascular graft from the same donor during liver transplantation. All four patients became progressively obtunded, lapsed into coma, and died within 50 days after transplantation. The initial diagnostic evaluation revealed no cause of the encephalitis, and assistance was sought from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Texas Department of State Health Services. We report the results of this investigation.

CASE REPORTS

Transplant Recipients

In May 2004, encephalitis was diagnosed in three recipients of a liver and two kidneys (Patients 2, 3, and 4 in Figure 1FIGURE 1The Clinical Course of Four Recipients of Rabies-Infected Tissue or Organs.) from a common organ donor. In all three patients, signs and symptoms of altered mental status and progressively worsening encephalitis developed within 30 days after transplantation. Major clinical events and immunosuppressive medications are summarized in Figure 1. All patients had rapid neurologic deterioration characterized by agitated delirium and seizures. Respiratory failure requiring intubation developed within 48 hours after the onset of neurologic symptoms. Examination of cerebrospinal fluid from the three patients showed pleocytosis, with an average of 18 cells per cubic millimeter (range, 7 to 35), and elevated protein levels (mean, 135 mg per deciliter; range, 17 to 331). Neurologic imaging in the week after the onset of symptoms showed no evidence of an acute cerebral process. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed later in the course of illness demonstrated diffuse signal abnormalities, most often in the temporal lobes, basal ganglia, brain stem, and hippocampi on T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images (Figure 2FIGURE 2Axial Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery MRI Scan Showing Profound Signal Abnormalities within the Bilateral Frontal and Temporal Lobes, Hippocampi, Basal Ganglia, and Medulla in Patient 2.). There was minimal enhancement after the administration of gadolinium. The patients died an average of 13 days after the onset of neurologic symptoms (range, 7 to 23).

Organ Donor

Four days before death, the organ donor was seen twice at an emergency department for nausea, vomiting, and difficulty swallowing. He was subsequently admitted to another hospital with altered mental status requiring intubation. Physical examination revealed a temperature of 38.1°C (100.5°F) and fluctuating blood pressures, including systolic measurements of more than 200 mm Hg. On admission, a urine toxicology screen was positive for cocaine and marijuana, and computed tomography of the brain demonstrated a subarachnoid hemorrhage. The hemorrhage progressed, and the neurologic symptoms, including seizures and coma, worsened. The patient was declared brain-dead within four days after presentation. Donor-eligibility screening and testing performed by an organ-procurement organization, including a review of premortem blood, urine, and sputum bacterial cultures, did not detect any signs or symptoms of infection precluding solid-organ donation. The patient’s kidneys, lungs, and liver were removed for transplantation; in addition, iliac arteries were harvested for potential use in vascular reconstruction during the liver transplantation. In part because of the positive toxicology result, nonorgan tissues (e.g., tendons) were not removed. During contact investigations conducted after the rabies diagnoses were made, friends of the donor indicated he had reported being bitten by a bat.

METHODS

Clinical and Epidemiologic Review

Medical records of the donor and infected transplant recipients were reviewed to characterize clinical courses and diagnostic evaluations. After the laboratory diagnosis of rabies infection in the three organ recipients, case finding was performed to search for other possible cases. Hospital autopsy records on patients with encephalitis were reviewed for pathological findings consistent with the presence of rabies. Also, charts of patients who had been on the same floor as a patient with rabies and who had also had a lumbar puncture or neurology consultation for altered mental status were examined for documented clinical findings consistent with the presence of rabies. Procedures for organ recovery and handling were also reviewed.

Laboratory Methods

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue specimens, obtained at autopsy, were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and various immunohistochemical stains according to a method described previously.6 For immunohistochemical assays, 3-μm tissue sections were deparaffinized, rehydrated, and digested in proteinase K. Tissue sections were incubated for 60 minutes at room temperature with a hyperimmune rabbit antiserum or mouse ascitic fluid with reactivity to rabies virus. After sequential application of the appropriate biotinylated linked antibody, avidin–alkaline phosphatase complex, and naphthol fast-red substrate, sections were counterstained in Meyer’s hematoxylin and mounted with the use of aqueous mounting medium. Serologic analyses, detection of viral antigen in tissue by means of fluorescence microscopy, and identification of rabies virus variants were performed as described previously.7,8 Controls included serum specimens from noninfected animals, tissues from humans with nonrabies encephalitides, and rabies-infected human tissues. Immunohistochemical assays for various other viral, rickettsial, and protozoan agents of encephalitis were also performed on tissues from recipients.

Vero E6 cells were inoculated with CSF and 10 percent tissue suspensions from three of the four rabies-infected recipients (Patients 2, 3, and 4). Suckling mice were inoculated intracranially and intraperitoneally with cerebrospinal fluid and 10 percent clarified homogenates of brain tissue, spinal cord, and kidney suspensions. Tissue cultures and suckling mice were observed daily for cytopathic effects and signs of illness, respectively. Tissues obtained from suckling mice that developed neurologic signs or died were fixed in 10 percent neutral buffered formalin or 2.5 percent buffered gluteraldehyde or were frozen for further evaluation. At 14 days, the Vero E6 cells were suspended in saline, fixed on glass slides, and tested for the presence of rabies virus antigen by means of a direct fluorescence antibody assay according to a previously described method.9 Immunohistochemical studies were performed as described above, and formalin-fixed tissues were embedded for examination by electron microscopy.

RESULTS

Review of Transplantation Records

All organs obtained from the donor were transplanted; the lung recipient died of intraoperative complications. Iliac arteries from the donor were not used during the liver transplantation in Patient 2 and were placed in a sterile container and stored for potential use in subsequent transplantation procedures. One day after the organs were transplanted, the iliac-artery segment was retrieved and used to construct a vascular graft for another liver-transplant procedure (in Patient 1).

Rabies Case Finding

In addition to the three initial cases noted by physicians, autopsy review identified a fourth patient (Patient 1 in Figure 1) in whom progressive, fatal encephalitis had developed after liver transplantation. This patient had received the vascular segment from the rabies-infected donor. A review of the medical records of patients who had been on the same floor as a patient with rabies and who had had a lumbar puncture or neurology consultation for altered mental status revealed no further cases of encephalitis consistent with the presence of rabies.

Pathological Findings

Histopathological evaluation of tissues from all four rabies-infected transplant recipients demonstrated diffuse, predominantly lymphohistiocytic, infiltrates and microglial nodules involving the cerebrum, brain stem, cerebellum, and spinal cord. Cytoplasmic inclusions consistent with Negri bodies were identified throughout the central nervous system (CNS), particularly in the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum and in neurons of the frontal cortex, thalamus, hippocampus, midbrain, and pons (Figure 3AFIGURE 3Histopathological Findings in Patient 4.). Lymphohistiocytic infiltrates involving the peripheral nerves, heart, and kidneys were also noted in some patients. Electron microscopy of the midbrain of Patient 4 demonstrated abundant rhabdovirus particles (Figure 3B). Intracytoplasmic rabies virus antigens were detected on immunohistochemical staining in neurons from multiple areas of the CNS (Figure 3C); in peripheral nerves of the transplanted kidneys, liver, and arterial graft (Figure 4FIGURE 4Immunohistochemical Staining (Red) of Rabies Virus Antigens in Peripheral Nerves of the Liver (Panels A and B), Kidney (Panel C), and Arterial-Graft Transplants (Panel D).); and in renal tubular epithelium, smooth muscle, histiocytes, and vascular endothelium. No tissues were positive for enteroviruses, human herpesviruses 1 and 2, West Nile and other flaviviruses, eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, Cache Valley virus, henipaviruses, measles virus, spotted fever and typhus group rickettsiae, Toxoplasma gondii, or Trypanosoma cruzion immunohistochemical analysis. Direct fluorescence antibody staining also demonstrated rabies virus antigens in CNS tissues from all recipients.

Serologic Analyses and Viral Identification

Antibodies (IgM and IgG) reactive to rabies virus were present in the donor’s serum at the time of death. Antibodies were also present in three of the four recipients in samples obtained on postoperative days 35 and 36; both IgM and IgG antibodies were present in one kidney recipient (Patient 3) and the recipient of the donor’s liver (Patient 2), whereas only IgG antibodies were present in the patient who received the arterial segment (Patient 1). Antigenic typing revealed a previously characterized rabies virus variant associated with bats.

Cell Culture and Mouse Inoculations

All suckling mice had neurologic abnormalities or had died seven to eight days after inoculation. Thin-section electron microscopy of CNS tissue demonstrated rhabdovirus particles, and IHC testing detected rabies virus antigens in mouse CNS tissues. Cultures of Vero E6 cells inoculated with brain, spinal cord, and kidney from a kidney recipient demonstrated rabies virus antigen on staining with DFA.

DISCUSSION

This report describes the transmission of rabies virus through the transplantation of solid organs and vascular material. Four patients who received transplants — three organs and one vascular segment — from a donor with unrecognized rabies infection subsequently died of rabies. The transmission of rabies from corneal transplants has been described previously.5

Rabies is seldom included in the differential diagnosis of encephalitis in the absence of a documented exposure or suggestive history.8,10 The symptoms in the cases reported here, including fever, changes in mental status, and autonomic instability, were, in retrospect, consistent with a diagnosis of rabies. However, the diagnosis was complicated by the absence of a history of exposure at presentation and by the number of other potential causes of illness in these immunosuppressed patients. A history of a bat bite in the donor was discovered during contact interviews only after rabies had been diagnosed, and the investigation initiated. The diagnosis in the donor was further complicated by the presence of a subarachnoid hemorrhage in the setting of hypertension and a positive toxicology screen for cocaine. It is not known whether rabies infection was the cause of the subarachnoid hemorrhage, since this finding has not been noted in previous reports.11-13

Signs of rabies developed in all four transplant recipients within 30 days after infection. According to previous reports, symptoms developed within 30 days after an animal bite in only 25 percent of patients.10 It is unknown whether the shorter incubation period in these patients was due to the immunosuppression, the route of transmission, or both. The effect of immunosuppression on rabies infection is currently not well understood. In reports of rabies transmission from corneal transplants in patients who were not immunosuppressed and did not receive postexposure prophylaxis, symptoms developed an average of 26 days after transplantation,14-17 suggesting that implantation of material from infected donors may lead to a shorter incubation period. Three of our patients presented with commonly described symptoms of tremors and changes in mental status, whereas the fourth presented with abdominal and flank pain, which may have been neuropathic, and changes in mental status occurred about 48 hours later. The rapidly progressive encephalitis, with death occurring an average of 13 days after the onset of symptoms, is consistent with the course in other reports.4

There is only one reported case of recovery from clinical rabies by a patient who had not received preexposure or postexposure prophylaxis against rabies.18 However, administration of postexposure prophylaxis with rabies immune globulin and vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection after exposure. In a previous report, administration of postexposure prophylaxis probably prevented infection in a patient who had received a cornea from a donor with rabies.19

This report and another, describing the transmission of West Nile virus through solid-organ transplantation,20 underscore the potential for transmission of unexpected infectious diseases through organ transplantation. Recognition and prevention of transplant-transmitted infections may be improved in various ways, including enhanced donor screening and testing, the development of standardized procedures related to storage and use of donor vascular segments, as well as methods to track their use or nonuse, and enhanced means of detection and diagnosis of illnesses in recipients.

To minimize the risk of transmitting infections during organ transplantation, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) has established standards that require organ-procurement organizations to assess the risks of infectious diseases through screening questions and blood testing for selected bloodborne viral pathogens and syphilis.21 Questions about potential exposure to rabies are generally not included, and laboratory testing for rabies infection is not performed. Organs can be procured from donors who are febrile, provided that the medical director of the organ-procurement organization and the transplantation physicians agree that the cause of the fever does not pose an unacceptable risk to the recipient. Given the growing importance of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, the ability of general improvements in the donor-screening process, rather than disease-specific measures, to increase organ safety should be evaluated. A proposed revision of OPTN policies would expand the list of potentially transmittable diseases and conditions that clinicians should consider in determining a donor’s eligibility.22 The revision emphasizes that when any of these conditions is known or suspected in a donor, this information should be conveyed immediately to the organ-procurement organization as well as to all transplantation centers that received organs from the donor.

The successful use of donor arterial conduits has been reported in liver transplantation23-26 and in the management of vascular complications in recipients of both hepatic transplants27,28 and renal transplants.29 As with organs, these vessel segments have the potential to transmit infection. A careful accounting of and an ability to track donated material, such as vessel conduits, are essential in efforts to link unexplained illnesses or deaths to a common organ donor and will increase the probability of quickly identifying all recipients who may be at risk from donor infections. Proposed revisions of the policies of both OPTN22 and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations30 may help address the storage of vessel conduits and documentation of their use or nonuse.

Our investigation underscores the challenge in detecting and diagnosing infections that occur in recipients of organs or tissues from a common donor. The potential for disease transmission from a donor as a cause of illness or death may not be considered in the evaluation of an individual recipient. In this investigation, and in the previous report of the transmission of West Nile virus through transplantation, the ability to connect illnesses to a common organ donor was facilitated by the fact that multiple recipients were hospitalized at the same facility. Improved national detection of unexpected or serious outcomes among transplant recipients may facilitate the discovery of transplant-related transmission of emerging and unusual pathogens by allowing connections to common donors to be made. The ability to make retrospective diagnoses of infections in organ donors when unexplained deaths or illnesses occur in recipients is hampered by the limited availability of donor samples, particularly tissue; currently, only serum samples from organ donors are retained for any length of time. Investigations into possible transplantation-associated infections would be facilitated by the availability of selected, archived tissue samples from the donor and by autopsy reports and materials. An improved diagnostic ability may have important implications for other patients who received material from the donors and for contacts of the patients and donors.

As organ and tissue transplantation becomes more common, the potential risks of disease transmission may increase. Cases of transplantation-associated infections provide important opportunities to review practices in an attempt to enhance the safety of transplantation without affecting the organ supply. The Department of Health and Human Services, including the CDC, is working with other partners in the organ- and tissue-transplantation community to review donor-screening practices, the use of retained vascular segments, and surveillance of recipients for illness. Clinicians who care for organ-transplant recipients should continue to be aware of the potential for disease transmission through transplantation and the challenges in recognizing atypical presentations of infections in this immunosuppressed population. Clinicians should report unexpected outcomes or unexplained illnesses in transplant recipients to their local organ- and tissue-procurement organization.

We are indebted to the state health departments in Oklahoma and Alabama, to the Southwest Transplant Alliance, and to the staff of the Baylor University Medical Center for their assistance with this investigation.

Source: NEJM

 

Ensuring fair allocation of organs.


Last week, the NHS Blood and Transplant organisation (NHSBT) published a new strategy on organ transplantation for the UK until 2020, with the support of UK health ministers. The aims of the strategy are to increase consent rates for organ donation, raise deceased donor rates, boost the number of organs transplanted from donors, and increase the number of patients receiving transplants. Launching the strategy during National Transplant Week, the Director of Organ Donation and Transplantation at NHSBT, Sally Johnson, called for debate on attitudes to organ donation: “Almost everyone would take an organ if they needed one—but only 57% of families agreed to donation when they were asked…is it fair to take if you won’t give?”

Specific actions are recommended in the strategy to improve knowledge of organ transplantation, ease registration for donation, and increase adherence to the donor’s wishes—in many cases, family members are unaware of the prospective donor’s wish to donate, or override that decision. Methods of providing support within hospitals are outlined to ensure that each donor can give as many organs as possible, and that surgeons have more options to preserve organs and that they adhere to evidence-based policies for organ allocation.

The most radical action proposed in the NHSBT strategy is to promote national debate on whether those on the Organ Donor Register should receive higher priority if they need to be placed on the transplant waiting list than those who have not registered to donate their organs. Such nationwide prioritisation is in place in Israel and Singapore.

The law in Israel came into force in 2010, and was born out of an acute organ shortage. In addition to organs prioritised for those with donor cards, transplant candidates can move up the priority list if they have a first-degree relative who has signed a donor card, donated an organ after death, or is an eligible live non-directed donor. Preliminary data from 2011 showed that deceased and living organ donation had risen compared with previous years. Critics have pointed out that clinical need should be the only factor determining organ allocation, and also that this system unfairly favours those with large families.

The United Network for Organ Sharing prioritises living donors of organs to receive a transplant from a dead donor, should they need one. In the USA, an organisation called LifeSharers facilitates donation between members—members commit to organ donation on their death, and other members are given priority to receive the organs.

In Wales, presumed consent for organ donation will come into force in 2015, after a 2 year public education programme to explain that people can register to donate, or opt out of donation. If they do neither, individuals will be presumed to have consented to donate their organs after death. The expectation is that the number of donors will substantially increase in Wales. Consultation on a similar opt-out system has also begun in Northern Ireland. Similar presumed consent systems are in place in Spain and Belgium.

In China, efforts are being made to ensure fair allocation of organs by enforcing use of a computerised system for organ distribution—the China Organ Transplant Response System—which ranks patients by disease severity, waiting time, and location. The source of organs, though, is still a major concern, with many still being from executed prisoners. Trafficking of organs, and payment for organs, are still major barriers to a fair system of transplantation in some countries.

Experts in organ transplantation met in Madrid on June 27—28 to share best practice in blood transfusion and transplantation in Europe, in an event partly sparked by recent scandals in Germany where there have been cases of falsification of patients’ data on transplant waiting lists to shorten waiting list times or to misdirect organs.

There are many frameworks within which organ transplantation can operate, but at the heart of any system must be trust. Dying patients must be able to trust their families to respect their wishes to donate, and their doctors to provide the best end-of-life care possible. Patients in need of a transplant must be able to trust in an ethical and fair organ supply, and that their doctors will provide the highest standards of clinical care. Patients who receive transplants must adhere to often punishing immunosuppression regimens and treatment to maximise the life of their new organs.

Clinical need should be the main determinant of organ receipt. Whether clinical need should be the only factor is a matter for debate. Is it fair to take an organ if you won’t give? Let the UK, and broader international, debate begin.

Source: Lancet

 

AMs to vote on ‘presumed consent’ organ donation plans.


Wales could become the only UK country with an opt-out organ donation system if politicians vote to change the law.

organ

The Welsh government wants to introduce a system where individuals will be presumed to have consented for their organs to be donated after death unless they have specifically objected.

But opponents want families to be able to stop a donation if their relative did not express an opinion either way.

Ministers want to increase the number of donors for transplant by a quarter.

There has been opposition to the changes from Christian churches and from within the Muslim and Jewish communities.

It would mean a change from the current opt-in system, where would-be donors have to sign a register.

A statement from faith leaders and health professionals – signed by the Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan and others – calls for a so-called “soft opt-out scheme” in the Human Transplantation Bill.

They say it would give deceased patients’ families a say on donation if their relative had neither opted in or out.

A joint statement says that failure to make changes to the bill would be “inhuman, unfeeling before the suffering of relatives, and a danger to the public trust and support which are necessary for the practice of organ donation to flourish”.

If passed by assembly members on Tuesday, the presumed consent system could come into force by 2015.

The Welsh government hopes legislation will lead to a rise in the numbers of donors.

As currently happens, organs could go to recipients anywhere in the UK, not just in Wales, although evidence from other countries with an opt-out system indicates that the rise is small with around 15 additional donors provided each year and approximately 45 extra organs.

According to the NHS Blood and Transplant service, fewer than 5,000 people die every year in the UK in circumstances that would allow them to donate successfully.

Added to that, when compatibility, organ suitability, location, time scales and consent are taken into account it means that not everyone who wants to donate actually does.

It is estimated there are around 250 people on a waiting list for a transplant at any one time – 33 people in Wales died in 2012/13 whilst waiting.

Health Minister Mark Drakeford told BBC Wales: “The legislation makes it absolutely clear that if you are uncomfortable with being an organ donor you have an absolute right in the simplest way possible to opt out of the system.

Publicise the system

“You put your name on the organ donor register saying you don’t want to be a donor and that is the end of the matter.

“There is nothing to be scared of in this legislation.”

The presumed consent law would apply to over-18s who die in Wales if they have lived in Wales for more than 12 months.

People will be able to sign up to the organ donor register so their wishes will be known if they die outside Wales.

ORGAN DONATION FIGURES

  • The aim of the Bill is to increase the number of organs available from Wales, potentially by 25%
  • On latest figures this would see the number of donors rise from around 65 donors to 80.
  • The average number of transplants anticipated from 15 additional donors would be approximately 26 kidneys, 10 livers, two hearts and four lungs
  • Just over 30% of organs donated in Wales are transplanted into people living in Wales

If the law is changed, ministers will have a duty to publicise the system and almost £8m will be spent over 10 years.

The bill would involve transferring some powers from the UK government to Welsh ministers.

The Kidney Wales Foundation (KWF) has campaigned for a law change on organ donation and described the bill as “progressive law”.

Roy Thomas, KWF chief executive, said: “The Welsh government has seen this bill scrutinised properly and several detailed consultations have been undertaken with the Welsh public.

“This law is further progress and evidence shows it will increase donation rates.”

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland a public consultation is under way about adopting an opt-out system. In Scotland, ministers have said the option was “not completely off the agenda” but they have argued that progress has been made under the current system.

The Department of Health said a taskforce had recommended against moving to an opt-out system for England in 2008.

A spokesman added: “We are working closely with the Welsh government to ensure their policy does not negatively impact on our work to promote voluntary organ donations.”

Source: BBC

 

 

Sarah Murnaghan gets lung transplant.


lung

A severely ill 10-year-old girl to whom a US judge granted a prime spot on the adult transplant list despite her youth has received a new set of lungs.

Sarah Murnaghan’s family said they were “thrilled” the six-hour surgery to implant adult lungs went smoothly and that she had done “extremely well”.

The family had challenged a US policy relegating under-12s to the bottom of the adult organ donation list.

Analysts have warned the judge’s decision set a dangerous precedent.

The Obama administration declined to intervene in Sarah’s case, arguing transplant policy should be made by doctors and scientists rather than the government.

Children under 12 have priority for paediatric lung donations, but far fewer paediatric lungs are donated than adult lungs.

‘Close to the end’

Sarah’s surgery began around 11:00 local time (15:00 GMT) on Wednesday in Philadelphia.

“Her doctors are very pleased with both her progress during the procedure and her prognosis for recovery,” the family said in a statement about seven hours later.

Her aunt Sharon Ruddock told reporters the lungs had been resized to fit her small body, but her recovery time would probably be extensive because the girl had been unconscious and breathing through a tube since Saturday as her condition deteriorated.

Complications from lung transplants can include rejection of the new lungs and infection.

 “Start Quote

It’s important that people understand that money, visibility, being photogenic… are factors that have to be kept to a minimum”

Dr Arthur Caplan,Bioethicist

Since Sarah’s case came to light, the national organisation that sets organ transplant policy has created a special appeal and review system for young patients.

About 30 children under the age of 11 are on the waiting list for a lung transplant, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, out of a total of 1,650 potential lung recipients.

Last week, US District Judge Michael Baylson, who is independent of the Obama administration, ruled Sarah and another child at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, 11-year-old Javier Acosta, eligible for a better spot on the adult list.

He found that the US policy amounted to improper age discrimination.

Both children suffer from with cystic fibrosis, a chronic lung disease. Sarah’s condition had worsened significantly in the last 18 months, diminishing her lung capacity to 30%.

Last month she was admitted to the intensive care unit in hospital. Doctors told the Murnaghans that if Sarah were an adult, she would probably be at “the very top” of the lung transplant list.

Ms Ruddock said she was sure that had Sarah not been put on the adult list, “we would have lost her”.

“She was very close to the end,” she said.

US patients on organ waiting lists as of 12 June 2013

  • Kidney: 96,555
  • Pancreas: 1,180
  • Kidney/Pancreas: 2,089
  • Liver: 15,736
  • Intestine: 264
  • Heart: 3,506
  • Lung: 1,650
  • Heart/Lung: 46

Source: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network

Some analysts warned the intervention of politicians and judges in the cases would set a dangerous precedent.

Dr Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center, said children fared worse than adults after lung transplants, one of the reasons for the existing policy.

“In general, the road to a transplant is still to let the system decide who will do best with scarce, lifesaving organs,” Dr Caplan said.

“And it’s important that people understand that money, visibility, being photogenic… are factors that have to be kept to a minimum if we’re going to get the best use out of the scarce supply of donated cadaver organs.”

Before Sarah, only one lung transplant from a donor older than 18 to a recipient younger than 12 had taken place in the US since 2007, according to US government data.

Source: BBC

Organ donation soars over last five years, says NHS Blood and Transplant


http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22086086