Browsing by Author "Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Bamlanivimab for Mild to Moderate COVID-19 in Kidney Transplant Recipients
    (Elsevier, 2021-09) Jan, Muhammad Y.; Sayegh, Skye E.; Webb, Hanna T.; Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo; Anderson, Melissa D.; Mishler, Dennis P.; Yaqub, Muhammad S.; Taber, Tim; Sharfuddin, Asif A.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are at an increased risk of hospitalization, complications, and mortality from COVID-19 compared with the general population.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Among KTRs with COVID-19 in the United States, studies have shown hospitalization rates ranging from 32% to 100%,1,3, 4, 5, 6 intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates from 20% to 61%,2,4 and overall mortality of 13% to 39%.1,2,4, 5, 6 A high incidence of acute kidney injury was noted, ranging from 30% to 89%,2,4, 5, 6 while renal replacement therapy was required in 13% to 21% of patients.1,7 Given the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia, most of these complications occurred ≥1 week after the diagnosis of COVID-19. Given the high impact of COVID-19 infection on KTRs, early COVID-19–directed therapies are critical. Bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555) was given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the US Food and Drug Administration on November 9, 2020.8 It is a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, inhibiting attachment to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor. This EUA was given for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients ≥12 years of age weighing >40 kg who are positive with a direct viral testing for SARS-CoV-2 and have high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization.8 KTRs with COVID-19 are considered high risk because of immunosuppressive medication use.9 Studies on the use of bamlanivimab among KTRs are limited. To provide more insight on the use of bamlanivimab in KTRs we report our experience with 24 KTRs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Characteristics associated with access to kidney transplantation services in the Ohio River Valley
    (2024-04-26) Kelty, Catherine; Buford, Jade; Drewry, Kelsey; Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo; Sharfuddin, Asif; Fridell, Jonathan; Sher, Jawad; Huml, Anne; Moe, Sharon; Patzer, Rachel
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clarifying the HOPE Act landscape: The challenge of donors with false-positive HIV results
    (Wiley, 2020-02) Durand, Christine M.; Werbel, William; Doby, Brianna; Brown, Diane; Desai, Niraj M.; Malinis, Maricar; Price, Jennifer; Chin-Hong, Peter; Mehta, Shikha; Friedman-Moraco, Rachel; Turgeon, Nicole A.; Gilbert, Alexander; Morris, Michele I.; Stosor, Valentina; Elias, Nahel; Aslam, Saima; Santos, Carlos A.Q.; Hand, Jonathan M.; Husson, Jennifer; Pruett, Timothy L.; Agarwal, Avinash; Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo; Pereira, Marcus; Small, Catherine B.; Apewokin, Senu; Lee, Dong Heun; Haidar, Ghady; Blumberg, Emily; Mehta, Sapna A.; Huprikar, Shirish; Florman, Sander S.; Redd, Andrew D.; Tobian, Aaron A.R.; Segev, Dorry L.; Medicine, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19
    (Science Direct, 2021-08-01) Jan, Muhammad Y.; Jawed, Areeba T.; Barros, Nicolas; Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo; Diez, Alejandro; Fridell, Jonathan A.; Goggins, William C.; Yaqub, Muhammad S.; Anderson, Melissa D.; Mujtaba, Muhammad A.; Taber, Tim E.; Mishler, Dennis P.; Kumar, Vineeta; Lentine, Krista L.; Sharfuddin, Asif A.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Introduction A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs. Methods We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed. Results A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers responded, representing 59% of US LKD programs and 72.4% of 2019 and 72.5% of 2020 LKD volume (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-OPTN 2021). In all, 48.6% of responding centers had received inquiries from such LKDs, whereas 44.3% were currently evaluating. A total of 98 donors were in the evaluation phase, whereas 27.8% centers had approved 42 such donors to proceed with donation. A total of 50.8% of participants preferred to wait >3 months, and 91% would wait at least 1 month from onset of infection to LD surgery. The most common reason to exclude LDs was evidence of COVID-19−related AKI (59.8%) even if resolved, followed by COVID-19−related pneumonia (28.7%) and hospitalization (21.3%). The most common concern in accepting such donors was kidney health postdonation (59.2%), followed by risk of transmission to the recipient (55.7%), donor perioperative pulmonary risk (41.4%), and donor pulmonary risk in the future (29.9%). Conclusion Practice patterns for acceptance of COVID-19−recovered LKDs showed considerable variability. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to guide optimal practices to ensure safety of accepting such donors. Long-term close follow-up of such donors is warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Patient and Graft Survival Outcomes During 2 Eras of Immunosuppression Protocols in Kidney Transplantation: Indiana University Retrospective Cohort Experience
    (Elsevier, 2021-12) Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo; Umukoro, Peter; Sharfuddin, Asif; Taber, Tim; Chen, Jeanne; Lane, Kathleen A.; Li, Xiaochun; Goggins, Williams; Yaqub, Muhammad S.; Biostatistics, School of Public Health
    Background Since 1964 when Indiana University performed its first kidney transplant, immunosuppression protocol was steroid-based until 2004 when steroid-free immunosuppression protocol was adopted. We describe clinical outcomes on our patients administered early steroid withdrawal (ESW) protocol (5 days) compared with our historical cohort (HC), who were on chronic steroid-based immunosuppression. Methods We performed a retrospective study evaluating kidney transplant recipients between 1993 and 2003 (HC, n = 1689) and between 2005 and 2016 (ESW cohort, n = 2097) at the Indiana University program, with a median follow-up of 10.5 years and 6.1 years, respectively. Primary outcomes were patient and death-censored graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years in both study cohorts. Secondary outcomes were 1-year rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection; graft function at 1, 3, and 5 years; and risk of post-transplant infection (BK virus and cytomegalovirus) in the ESW cohort. Cox proportional model and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate survival probabilities. Fisher exact tests were used to compare episodes of acute rejection in the ESW cohort. Results No difference was observed in patient survival between the ESW and HC cohorts (P = .13). Compared with the ESW cohort, death-censored graft survival was significantly worse in the HC (5 year: 86.4% vs 90.6%, log-rank P < .001). One-year acute rejection reported in the ESW cohort alone was 15.7% and significantly worse in Black patients and younger patients (P < .05). Conclusions In this sizeable single-center cohort study with significant ethnic diversity, ESW is a viable alternative to steroid-based immunosuppression protocol in kidney transplant recipients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Vasopressin for Post-kidney Transplant Hypotension
    (Elsevier, 2022-04-07) Jan, Muhammad Y.; Moe, Sharon M.; Adebiyi, Oluwafisayo; Chen, Jeannie; Powelson, John; Burney, Heather N.; Yaqub, Muhammad S.; Mishler, Dennis P.; Moorthi, Ranjani N.; Taber, Tim E.; Anderson, Melissa D.; Li, Yang; Li, Xiaochun; Fridell, Jonathan A.; Goggins, William C.; Sharfuddin, Asif A.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Hypotension after deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) is a risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and poor graft survival (GS). We hypothesize that vasopressin use in hypotensive DDKT recipients (DDKTRs) to increase blood pressure (BP) reduces DGF rates and is safe without increasing mortality. Methods: Group with vasopressin "study group" (n = 45) was defined as DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 who required vasopressin for hypotension systolic BP (SBP) <120 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) <60 mm Hg. DDKTRs with no-vasopressin "comparison group" (n = 90) were propensity score-matched DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 without vasopressin use. Primary outcomes were GS, creatinine and allograft biopsy rate at 1 year, DGF rate, and death during transplant hospitalization. Results: Vasopressin group had lower mean maximum and minimum SBP and DBP in the operating room (OR). Median vasopressin start time post-DDKT was 2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 1-6), and duration of use was 42 hours (IQR 24-63). DGF, creatinine at 1 year, and allograft biopsy rates were comparable. No deaths occurred during transplant hospitalization. Multivariable analysis did not find an effect of vasopressin use on GS. Conclusion: Treatment of hypotensive DDKTRs with vasopressin is safe and facilitated similar graft function and survival with that of nonhypotensive patients. In the absence of a randomized control trial, our study supports the safety of vasopressin therapy to prevent the adverse effects of hypotension.