Reliability of QuantiFERON®-CMV in predicting CMV recurrence in heart transplant recipients: A single-center retrospective study.
anti-thymocyte globulin
cell-mediated immunity
cytomegalovirus
everolimus
heart transplantation
secondary prophylaxis
Journal
Clinical transplantation
ISSN: 1399-0012
Titre abrégé: Clin Transplant
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8710240
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
08
08
2023
received:
04
06
2023
accepted:
16
08
2023
pubmed:
29
8
2023
medline:
29
8
2023
entrez:
29
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recurrence after Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in heart transplant recipients is difficult to predict, in spite of its high incidence. Secondary prophylaxis could reduce this burden; however, its duration remains unestablished. We evaluated the QuantiFERON®-CMV test to see if it could predict CMV recurrence and help optimize the duration of secondary prophylaxis. This observational retrospective single center study included all heart transplant recipients who developed CMV infection between 2019 and 2021, with the CD8+ T-cell-mediated CMV immunity QuantiFERON®-CMV test assessed at the time of (val)ganciclovir curative treatment completion. The main outcomes were CMV recurrence and duration of secondary prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included immunosuppressive regimen, rejection, lymphocyte count, CMV viral load, infection type, and duration as possible confounding factors for recurrence. Among the 15 patients included, five (33%) experienced recurrence, of whom three (60%) had a positive QuantiFERON®-CMV test. The duration of secondary prophylaxis was similar regardless of QF-CMV positivity. No confounding factor was significantly associated with CMV recurrence; however, it occurred in only 1/7 (14%) of the patients receiving an everolimus-containing immunosuppressive regimen. In the population of heart transplant recipients, most of whom received ATG-based induction, the QuantiFERON®-CMV assay may not accurately predict CMV recurrence and would have not helped refining the duration of secondary prophylaxis in our patients. Other cell-mediated immunity tests and strategies in this specific population, including everolimus-containing regimens, may help predict and manage CMV recurrence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recurrence after Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in heart transplant recipients is difficult to predict, in spite of its high incidence. Secondary prophylaxis could reduce this burden; however, its duration remains unestablished. We evaluated the QuantiFERON®-CMV test to see if it could predict CMV recurrence and help optimize the duration of secondary prophylaxis.
METHODS
METHODS
This observational retrospective single center study included all heart transplant recipients who developed CMV infection between 2019 and 2021, with the CD8+ T-cell-mediated CMV immunity QuantiFERON®-CMV test assessed at the time of (val)ganciclovir curative treatment completion. The main outcomes were CMV recurrence and duration of secondary prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included immunosuppressive regimen, rejection, lymphocyte count, CMV viral load, infection type, and duration as possible confounding factors for recurrence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 15 patients included, five (33%) experienced recurrence, of whom three (60%) had a positive QuantiFERON®-CMV test. The duration of secondary prophylaxis was similar regardless of QF-CMV positivity. No confounding factor was significantly associated with CMV recurrence; however, it occurred in only 1/7 (14%) of the patients receiving an everolimus-containing immunosuppressive regimen.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In the population of heart transplant recipients, most of whom received ATG-based induction, the QuantiFERON®-CMV assay may not accurately predict CMV recurrence and would have not helped refining the duration of secondary prophylaxis in our patients. Other cell-mediated immunity tests and strategies in this specific population, including everolimus-containing regimens, may help predict and manage CMV recurrence.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e15109Subventions
Organisme : Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille
Organisme : National Center of Reference (CNR Herpesviridae) of Limoges University Hospital
Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Poglajen G, Zemljič G, Frljak S, et al. QuantiFERON-CMV guided virostatic prophylaxis after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39(3):278-281. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2020.01.001
Manuel O, Husain S, Kumar D, et al. Assessment of cytomegalovirus-specific cell-mediated immunity for the prediction of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk solid-organ transplant recipients: a multicenter cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(6):817-824. doi:10.1093/cid/cis993
Natori Y, Humar A, Husain S, et al. Recurrence of CMV infection and the effect of prolonged antivirals in organ transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2017;101(6):1449-1454. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000001338
Kotton CN, Kumar D, Caliendo AM, et al. The Third International Consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2018;102(6):900-931. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000002191
Gardiner BJ, Chow JK, Price LL, Nierenberg NE, Kent DM, Snydman DR. Role of secondary prophylaxis with valganciclovir in the prevention of recurrent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(12):2000-2007. doi:10.1093/cid/cix696
Crough T, Khanna R. Immunobiology of human cytomegalovirus: from bench to bedside. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(1):76-98. doi:10.1128/CMR.00034-08
Kirchner A, Hoffmeister B, Cherepnev-G G, et al. Dissection of the CMV specific T-cell response is required for optimized cardiac transplant monitoring. J Med Virol. 2008;80(9):1604-1614. doi:10.1002/jmv.21229
Kumar D, Mian M, Singer L, Humar A. An interventional study using cell-mediated immunity to personalize therapy for cytomegalovirus infection after transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(9):2468-2473. doi:10.1111/ajt.14347
Azar MM, Turbett S, Gaston D, et al. A consensus conference to define the utility of advanced infectious disease diagnostics in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. Dec 2022;22(12):3150-3169. doi:10.1111/ajt.17147
Costanzo MR, Costanzo MR, Dipchand A, et al. The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29(8):914-956. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2010.05.034
Chiereghin A, Potena L, Borgese L. Monitoring of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific cell-mediated immunity in heart transplant recipients: clinical utility of the QuantiFERON-CMV assay for management of posttransplant CMV infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(4):e01040-17. doi:10.1128/JCM.01040-17
Kaminski H, Marseres G, Yared N, et al. mTOR inhibitors prevent CMV infection through the restoration of functional αβ and γδ T cells in kidney transplantation. JASN. 2022;33(1):121-137. doi:10.1681/ASN.2020121753
Chen JK, Salerno DM, Corbo H, et al. Immune cell function assay and T lymphocyte counts lack association with rejection or infection in pediatric heart transplant recipients. Clin Transplant. 2023;37(2):e14858. doi:10.1111/ctr.14858
García-Romero E, Díez-López C, Olivella A, et al. Role of everolimus in providing protection from cmv infection after transplant by improving T-cell specific immunity. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021;40(4):S480. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.01.1981
Gardiner BJ, Bailey JP, Percival MA, et al. Incidence and severity of cytomegalovirus infection in seropositive heart transplant recipients. Clin Transplant. 2023;e14982. doi:10.1111/ctr.14982
Jarque M, Crespo E, Melilli E, et al. Cellular immunity to predict the risk of cytomegalovirus infection in kidney transplantation: a prospective, interventional, multicenter clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;XX(XX):1-11. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz1209
Abate D, Fiscon M, Saldan A, et al. Human cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell immune reconstitution in preemptively treated heart transplant recipients identifies subjects at critical risk for infection. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2012;50(6):1974-1980. doi:10.1128/JCM.06406-11
Wagner-Drouet E, Teschner D, Wolschke C, et al. Standardized monitoring of cytomegalovirus-specific immunity can improve risk stratification of recurrent cytomegalovirus reactivation after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Haematologica. 2021;106(2):363-374. doi:10.3324/haematol.2019.229252
Schachtner T, Stein M, Reinke P. CMV-specific T cell monitoring offers superior risk stratification of CMV-seronegative kidney transplant recipients of a CMV-seropositive donor. Transplantation. 2017;101(10):e315-e325. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000001825
Carbone J, Lanio N, Gallego A, et al. Simultaneous monitoring of cytomegalovirus-specific antibody and T-cell levels in seropositive heart transplant recipients. J Clin Immunol. 2012;32(4):809-819. doi:10.1007/s10875-012-9670-7
San-Juan R, Navarro D, García-Reyne A, et al. Effect of long-term prophylaxis in the development of cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell immunity in D+/R− solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2015;17(5):637-646. doi:10.1111/tid.12417