Risk of infectious diseases among first-degree relatives of transplant recipients who develop CMV infection: is the infectious phenotype inheritable?

"Risk of de novo or secondary cancer after solid organ or allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation"

PURPOSE

Solid organ (SOT) and allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell (HSCT) transplant recipients have elevated risks of de novo or secondary cancer. We explored risk factors hereof.

METHODS

Among SOT and HSCT between January 2004 and December 2014, standardised incidence ratio (SIR) of de novo/secondary cancer compared with the Danish population was determined and risk factors were identified using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

During a median of 3.4 (IQR 1.3-6.4) and 2.6 (0.8-5.4) person-years (PY) after SOT and HSCT, a total of 212/1656 (13%) and 75/992 (8%) persons developed cancer; SIR 3.61 (3.0-4.3) and 2.2 (1.6-3.0), resp.). SIR correlated with younger age and was highest for skin and haematological cancers for both types of transplantation. Within the cohort, cancer was associated with older age (adjusted incidence rate ratio > 50 vs ≤ 19 years, among SOT and HSCT: 9.4 (3.4-25.7) and 25.4 (5.1-126.0), resp.) and current elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) (≥ 10 vs < 10 mg/L: 2.5 (1.8-3.4) and 2.3 (1.4-3.9), resp.), but neither with prior cancer nor type of immunosuppressants.

CONCLUSION

Rates of de novo or secondary cancers are elevated in both SOT and HSCT compared with the general population and mainly for skin and haematological cancers. Among transplant recipients, older age and current elevated CRP are risk factors.

Risk Factors for Failure of Primary (Val)ganciclovir Prophylaxis Against Cytomegalovirus Infection and Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background

Rates and risk factors for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis breakthrough and discontinuation were investigated, given uncertainty regarding optimal dosing for CMV primary (val)ganciclovir prophylaxis after solid organ transplantation (SOT).

Methods

Recipients transplanted from 2012 to 2016 and initiated on primary prophylaxis were followed until 90 days post-transplantation. A (val)ganciclovir prophylaxis score for each patient per day was calculated during the follow-up time (FUT; score of 100 corresponding to manufacturers’ recommended dose for a given estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]). Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for relevant risk factors.

Results

Of 585 SOTs (311 kidney, 117 liver, 106 lung, 51 heart) included, 38/585 (6.5%) experienced prophylaxis breakthrough and 35/585 (6.0%) discontinued prophylaxis for other reasons. CMV IgG donor+/receipient- mismatch (adjusted HR [aHR], 5.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63 to 10.98; P < 0.001) and increasing % FUT with a prophylaxis score <90 (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.29; P = .01 per 10% longer FUT w/ score <90) were associated with an increased risk of breakthrough. Lung recipients were at a significantly increased risk of premature prophylaxis discontinuation (aHR, 20.2 vs kidney; 95% CI, 3.34 to 121.9; P = .001), mainly due to liver or myelotoxicity.

Conclusions

Recipients of eGFR-adjusted prophylaxis doses below those recommended by manufacturers were at an increased risk of prophylaxis breakthrough, emphasizing the importance of accurate dose adjustment according to the latest eGFR and the need for novel, less toxic agents.

The value of EBV DNA in early detection of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders among solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

PURPOSE

Emerging EBV DNAemia in plasma is considered an early sign of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). The aim of this study was to quantify the extent of benefit from screening for EBV DNAemia to detect emerging PTLD among solid organ (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (HSCT).

METHODS

We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for assessing ability of models to predict PTLD. Among 2642 recipients transplanted between January 2004 and December 2014, 79 (3%) developed PTLD.

RESULTS

EBV DNAemia was observed in 331/1784 recipients (18.6%, 95% CI 16.8-20.4) with measured EBV DNA. The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC of EBV DNAemia to identify persons with subsequent PTLD was 72% (95% CI, 64-79%) among SOT and 59% (51-68%) among HSCT. Including clinical predictors such as age, gender, transplant year and type, high-risk EBV serostatus, and routine biochemistry in addition to EBV DNAemia increased AUC to 83% (75-90%) among SOT and 84% (79-89%) among HSCT. Among HSCT, including additional factors such as T-cell-depleting treatment, acute graft vs. host disease and donor match increased AUC to 85% (78-91%).

CONCLUSIONS

We constructed a model to better predict PTLD compared to EBV DNA screening alone which could have clinical implications.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease Despite Weekly Preemptive CMV Strategy for Recipients of Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Background

Transplant recipients presenting with cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease at the time of diagnosis of CMV DNAemia pose a challenge to a preemptive CMV management strategy. However, the rate and risk factors of such failure remain uncertain.

Methods

Solid organ transplantation (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients with a first episode of CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNAemia within the first year posttransplantation were evaluated (n = 335). Patient records were reviewed for presence of CMV disease at the time of CMV DNAemia diagnosis. The distribution and prevalence of CMV disease were estimated, and the odds ratio (OR) of CMV disease was modeled using logistic regression.

Results

The prevalence of CMV disease increased for both SOT and HSCT with increasing diagnostic CMV PCR load and with screening intervals >14 days. The only independent risk factor in multivariate analysis was increasing CMV DNAemia load of the diagnostic CMV PCR (OR = 6.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.09–18.11). Among recipients receiving weekly screening (n = 147), 16 (10.8%) had CMV disease at the time of diagnosis of CMV DNAemia (median DNAemia load 628 IU/mL; interquartile range, 432–1274); 93.8% of these cases were HSCT and lung transplant recipients.

Conclusions

Despite application of weekly screening intervals, HSCT and lung transplant recipients in particular presented with CMV disease at the time of diagnosis of CMV DNAemia. Additional research to improve the management of patients at risk of presenting with CMV disease at low levels of CMV DNAemia and despite weekly screening is warranted.