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.
Lung transplant recipients (LTR) at our institution receive prolonged and mostly lifelong azole antifungal (AF) prophylaxis. The impact of this prophylactic strategy on the epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infections (IFI) is unknown. This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. We reviewed the medical records of all adult LTR from January 2002 to December 2011. Overall, 16.5% (15 of 91) of patients who underwent lung transplantation during this time period developed IFI. Nineteen IFI episodes were identified (eight proven, 11 probable), 89% (17 of 19) of which developed during AF prophylaxis. LTR with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis were more likely to develop IFI (HR: 4.29; 95% CI: 1.15-15.91; p = 0.03). A higher hazard of mortality was observed among those who developed IFI, although this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.58-4.05]; p = 0.27). Aspergillus fumigatus was the most common cause of IFI (45%), with pulmonary parenchyma being the most common site of infection. None of our patients developed disseminated invasive aspergillosis, cryptococcal or endemic fungal infections. IFI continue to occur in LTR, and the eradication of IFI appears to be challenging even with prolonged prophylaxis. Azole resistance is uncommon despite prolonged AF exposure.
Immunogenicity from seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) remains suboptimal in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). We conducted a systematic review that compared the safety and immunogenicity of nonstandard influenza vaccination strategies with single-dose IIV in SOTRs. Booster doses and possibly high-dose (HD) influenza vaccination strategies seem to hold promise for improving vaccination immunogenicity in SOTRs. Administration of intradermal and MF59-adjuvanted trivalent IIV (IIV3) did not improve vaccine immunogenicity compared with single-dose intramuscular IIV. Alternative vaccine strategies were generally well tolerated; SOTRs who received HD, intradermal or adjuvanted IIV3 had a higher frequency of infection site reactions, while systemic adverse events were more frequent in SOTRs who received HD IIV3. Allograft rejection rates were similar in both groups. SOTRs should continue to receive standard-dose IIV annually in accordance with current recommendations, pending future studies to determine the optimal timing, frequency, and dosage of IIV using the booster-dose strategy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.