Features of Cytomegalovirus DNAemia Blips in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: Implications for Optimization of Preemptive Antiviral Therapy Strategies

Consensus Definitions of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection and Disease in Transplant Patients Including Resistant and Refractory CMV for Use in Clinical Trials: 2024 Update From the Transplant Associated Virus Infections Forum

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease are important causes of morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients. For the purpose of developing consistent reporting of CMV outcomes in clinical trials, definitions of CMV infection and disease were developed and most recently published in 2017. Since then, there have been major developments, including registration of new antiviral agents. Therefore, the Transplant Associated Virus Infections Forum, which consists of scientists, clinicians, regulators, and industry representatives, has produced an updated version of these definitions that incorporates recent knowledge with the aim of supporting clinical research and drug development. This also includes an update regarding the definition of resistant and refractory CMV infections previously published in 2019. As the field evolves, the need for updates of these definitions is clear, and collaborative efforts among clinicians, scientists, regulators, and industry representatives can provide a platform for this work.

Cytomegalovirus in haematopoietic cell transplantation - The troll is still there

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation are prone to complications caused by viral infections. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) considerably impacts transplantation as it frequently requires antiviral intervention that evokes substantial side effects depending on the antiviral drug. Intermittent antiviral treatment may become necessary if CMV DNAemia cannot be permanently suppressed, and drug resistance may emerge that hampers and prolongs treatment. Despite sedulous endeavours, vaccination against CMV is not yet available. This review concisely summarises current approaches in managing CMV infection comprising risk factors, diagnostics including indications for resistance testing, and therapeutic options from antiviral drugs to virus-specific T cells.

Letermovir Primary Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients: Real-Life Data from a University Hospital in Argentina

Background

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains the most common clinically significant infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality.

Objectives

The present study was designed to describe and compare the incidence of untreated CMV reactivation (uCMVr), clinically significant infection (cs-CMVi) and disease (CMVd), as well as CMV-related hospitalization and outcome of allo-HCT patients, either treated with letermovir (LET) primary prophylaxis or managed with preemptive therapy (PET).

Methods

This is a prospective observational cohort study of adult CMV seropositive allo-HCT patients who either received primary prophylaxis with LET within the first 100 days after HCT or were managed with PET.

Results

The study population comprised 105 patients (28 in the LET group and 77 in the PET group). Compared to the PET group, patients in the LET group received more allo-HCT from alternative donors (54.5% vs. 82.14%, P=0.012). More than half of the patients in both groups were classified as high risk for CMVd. In the LET vs. PET group, cs-CMVi and CMVd developed respectively in 0 vs. 50 (64.94%), P=<0.0001, and 0 vs. 6 (7.79%), P=0.18. In the LET group, uCMVr occurred in 5 (17.8%) and were all considered blips. Hospital admissions related to cs-CMVi or CMVd in the PET group vs. LET group were 47 (61.04%) vs. 0, respectively, P=<0.0001. No differences were observed in 100-day mortality.

Conclusions

LET primary prophylaxis proved effective in preventing cs-CMVi and CMVd and reducing hospitalizations in allo-HCT adults. Blips can occur during prophylaxis and do not require LET discontinuation.

Letermovir for cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: tips and notes for effective use in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a major complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). While conventional antiviral agents such as ganciclovir can be used for CMV prophylaxis, toxicities such as myelosuppression are a major concern.

AREA COVERED

This work aimed to summarize the latest information and practical issues regarding a new anti-CMV agent, letermovir (LET).

EXPERT OPINION

LET inhibits CMV replication by binding to components of the DNA terminase complex. A phase 3 trial in allo-HSCT recipients showed a reduced incidence of clinically significant CMV infection in the LET group. In 2017, this agent was first approved for CMV prophylaxis in adult CMV-seropositive allo-HSCT recipients in the United States, and is now used worldwide. While LET has an excellent toxicity profile, there are issues to be aware of, such as interactions with other drug classes (e.g. immunosuppressants and antifungals) and reactivation of CMV infection following LET cessation. While LET is the current standard of care for CMV prophylaxis, there are no established protocols for preemptive treatment of asymptomatic CMV viremia or for treatment of developed CMV disease. Further research is needed to maximize the benefits of LET, including the discovery of biomarkers.

Letermovir for CMV Prophylaxis in Very High-Risk Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients for Inborn Errors of Immunity

The burden of CMV infection and disease is important in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), notably in the subgroup of patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEIs). Letermovir (LMV) is now a standard of care for CMV prophylaxis in adult sero-positive (R+) recipients, but is not yet labeled for children. Published pediatric studies are still scarce. We report a monocentric real-life use of LMV in 36 HSCT pediatric recipients with IEIs considered at high-risk of CMV infection including 14 patients between 2 and 12 months of age. A homogenous dosage proportional to the body surface area was used. Pharmacokinetic (PK) was performed in 8 patients with a median of 6 years of age (range 0,6;15). The cumulative incidence of clinically significant CMV infections (CS-CMVi) and the overall survival of patients under LMV were compared to a very similar historical cohort under (val)aciclovir prophylaxis. LMV tolerance was good. As compared to the historical cohort, the incidence of CS-CMVi was significantly lower in LMV group (5 out of 36 transplants (13.9%) versus 28 of the 62 HSCT (45.2%)) (p = 0.002). Plasma LMV exposures did not significantly differ with those reported in adult patients. In this high-risk pediatric HSCT cohort transplanted for IEIs, CMV prophylaxis with LMV at a homogenous dosage was well tolerated and effective in preventing CS-CMVi compared with a historical cohort.

Amplicon size and non-encapsidated DNA fragments define plasma cytomegalovirus DNA loads by automated nucleic acid testing platforms: A marker of viral cytopathology?

Management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in transplant patients relies on measuring plasma CMV-loads using quantitative nucleic acid testing (QNAT). We prospectively compared the automated Roche-cobas®6800-CMV and Roche-CAP/CTM-CMV with laboratory-developed Basel-CMV-UL54-95bp, and Basel-CMV-UL111a-77bp. Roche-cobas®6800-CMV and Roche-CAP/CTM-CMV were qualitatively concordant in 142/150 cases (95%). In-depth comparison revealed higher CMV-loads of the laboratory-developed assay and correlated with smaller amplicon size. After calibration to the 1.WHO-approved CMV international standard, differences were reduced but remained significant. DNase-I pretreatment significantly reduced CMV-loads for both automated Roche-CAP/CTM-CMV and Roche-cobas®6800-CMV assays, whereby 90% and 95% of samples became undetectable. DNase-I pretreatment also reduced CMV-loads quantified by Basel-CMV-UL54-95bp and Basel-CMV-UL111a-77bp, but remaining detectable in 20% and 35%, respectively. Differences were largest for 110 samples with low-level CMV-DNAemia being detectable but not-quantifiable by Roche-cobas®6800-CMV, whereby the smaller amplicon sizes yielded higher viral loads for concordant positives. We conclude that non-encapsidated fragmented CMV-DNA is the major form of plasma CMV-loads also measured by fully-automated platforms. Amplicons of <150 bp and calibrators are needed for reliable and commutable QNAT-results. We hypothesize that non-encapsidated fragmented CMV-DNA results from lysis of CMV-replicating cells and represent a direct marker of viral cell damage, which contribute to delayed viral load responses despite effective antivirals.

Dynamics of polyclonal immuno-reconstitution after allogeneic transplant with post-transplant cyclophosphamide and letermovir

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivations are strong stimulators of immune-reconstitution (IR) in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. Herein, we analyzed 317 CMV-seropositive consecutive patients (n = 109 letermovir, LTV; n = 208 no-LTV), undergoing HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and calcineurin inhibitor- (CNI) free graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) prophylaxis. At day+90, median CD19+/mm3 was higher in LTV-cohort: 5.5 [0;439] versus 2 [0;294], p = 0.008; median CD3+/mm3 counts were lower in LTV-cohort, with no differences in CD4+, CD8+ and NK-cells. At day+180 median CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+/mm3 values were comparable between groups. Higher CD19+/mm3 counts were observed in LTV-cohort: 62 [0; 2983] versus 42 [0; 863]. Significantly higher median NK/mm3 values were seen in LTV-cohort: 225.5 [0;763] versus 163.5 [0;1181], p = 0.0003. The impact of LTV on B-cell IR at 3 months and NK-cell levels at 6 months was retained in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01), whereas the effect on T-cells was not confirmed. Moreover, we confirmed a significant reduction of clinically-relevant CMV, and moderate-to- severe chronic GvHD in LTV-cohort. Overall, in our study the use of LTV was associated with a slight improvement of B-cell and NK-cells reconstitution, with only minor impact on T-cell subsets, giving new insights on polyclonal IR for HSCT recipients in the LTV era.

Cytomegalovirus Infection after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation under 100-Day Letermovir Prophylaxis: A Real-World 1-Year Follow-Up Study

The prevention and management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is important to improve the outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) recipients. The aim of this study was to analyze real-world data regarding the incidence and characteristics of CMV infections until 1 year after allo-HCT under 100-day letermovir prophylaxis. A single-center retrospective study was conducted between November 2020 and October 2021. During the study period, 358 patients underwent allo-HCT, 306 of whom received letermovir prophylaxis. Cumulative incidence of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) was 11.4%, 31.7%, and 36.9% at 14 weeks, 24 weeks, and 1 year post-HCT, respectively. Through multivariate analysis, the risk of CS-CMVi increased with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) ≥ grade 2 (adjusted odds ratio 3.640 [2.036-6.510]; p < 0.001). One-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in letermovir breakthrough CS-CMVi patients than those with subclinical CMV reactivation who continued receiving letermovir (p = 0.002). There were 18 (15.9%) refractory CMV infection cases in this study population. In summary, letermovir prophylaxis is effective at preventing CS-CMVi until day 100, which increased after the cessation of letermovir. GVHD is still a significant risk factor in the era of letermovir prophylaxis. Further research is needed to establish individualized management strategies, especially in patients with significant GVHD or letermovir breakthrough CS-CMVi.

Features of cytomegalovirus DNAemia and virus-specific T-cell responses in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients during prophylaxis with letermovir

BACKGROUND

There is scarce information on the natural kinetics of cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNAemia and dynamics of CMV-specific T-cell reconstitution in allogeneic hematopoietic transplant recipients (allo-HSCT) undergoing letermovir (LMV) prophylaxis.

METHODS

Twelve adult CMV-seropositive high-risk recipients (median age, 53 years; 9 males/3 females) undergoing LMV prophylaxis and 13 non-LMV allo-HSCT controls (median age, 58 years; 7 males/6 females) were included. CMV DNAemia in plasma was monitored by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Preemptive antiviral therapy (PET) was administered upon detection of ≥1500 IU/ml. CMV-specific interferon-gamma (IFN-γ)-producing CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells were enumerated by flow cytometry around days +30, +60, and +90 after allo-HSCT. Ex vivo experiments assessing of the potential effect of LMV on CMV-specific T-cell expansion in a single CMV-seropositive donor were also conducted.

RESULTS

Five LMV patients (41.6%) developed CMV DNAemia that cleared spontaneously. Four patients (33.3%) developed CMV DNAemia after LMV cessation, of which two required PET. Nine non-LMV patients (69.2%) developed CMV DNAemia (five required PET). The percentage of LMV and non-LMV patients exhibiting detectable CMV-specific T-cell responses was comparable (7/10 vs. 10/13; p = .71). Nevertheless, median CMV-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell counts were lower in LMV patients by days +60 (p = .006 and .02, respectively) and +90 (p = .08 and .02). Ex vivo, CMV-specific CD8⁺ T cells expanded to the same level either in the presence (19.8%) or in the absence of LMV (20.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, episodes of CMV DNAemia in LMV patients cleared spontaneously. A diminished degree of CMV-specific T-cell reconstitution in LMV patients compared to non-LMV patients was observed.

Evaluation of cytomegalovirus "Blips" in high risk kidney/kidney-pancreas transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after solid organ transplantation. While guidelines suggest using highly sensitive QNAT assays for CMV detection, there is no defined viral load to guide initiation of preemptive therapy.^1,2 This study evaluates the progression to quantifiable CMV (DNAemia) following a CMV "blip" in high risk (D+/R) kidney/kidney-pancreas (KP) transplant recipients.

METHODS

This is a single center, retrospective study. A CMV "blip" was defined as the first positive QNAT assay below the level of quantification (< 1.37×10² IU/mL or < 200 viral copies). Subsequent CMV QNAT assays were followed to assess the progression from blip to CMV DNAemia for 1 year following transplant.

RESULTS

134 patients were included in the study. Fifty-three (39.6%) patients had their first positive CMV QNAT value below the level of quantification, a "CMV blip". Of these 53 patients, 69.8% (n = 37) progressed to DNAemia while 30.2% (n = 16) did not. The median time from transplant to the first CMV blip was 68 (46-97) days and most patients with viral blips (71.1%) were on prophylaxis. No differences in patient characteristics were found among those who progressed from blip to DNAemia and those who only had a blip.

CONCLUSIONS

In CMV high risk kidney/KP transplant recipients, CMV blips progressed to CMV DNAemia in the majority of cases. This progression typically occurred 2-3 weeks following the initial blip. CMV blips are common early post-transplant despite prophylaxis and likely represent an early marker of CMV infection. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Cytomegalovirus events in high-risk allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation patients who received letermovir prophylaxis

Letermovir is approved for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and clinical disease in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation (HCT). However, there is uncertainty about letermovir's ability to prevent clinical events during the period of prophylaxis as well as after the discontinuation of prophylaxis in the post-transplant setting. We performed a retrospective cohort study in CMV-seropositive allogeneic HCT recipients at high risk of CMV events, who received letermovir for primary prophylaxis from November 2017 through December 2019. We analyzed CMV outcomes for these patients during and after prophylaxis was discontinued. Patient outcomes were followed through June 2020. Sixty patients received letermovir for a median of 13 weeks (range, 1-72 weeks). Thirteen (22%) patients had quantifiable CMV DNAemia (reactivation) during letermovir prophylaxis a median of 9 days (range, 1-59 days) after starting letermovir. Five (8%) of these patients discontinued prophylaxis and received preemptive therapy (PET) with valganciclovir; eight (13%) continued letermovir as prophylaxis and CMV DNAemia resolved without PET. Thirteen patients (22%) had post-prophylaxis CMV reactivation a median of 33 days (range, 14-109 days) after letermovir discontinuation. In four (7%) of these patients, CMV DNAemia resolved without PET, and nine (15%) received PET. No patient developed CMV disease. Patients who developed CMV reactivation during prophylaxis did so shortly after initiation of letermovir, and most patients who developed CMV reactivation post-prophylaxis did so within 60 days after discontinuation of letermovir. Letermovir prophylaxis has changed the presentation of CMV infection in high-risk HCT patients.