T-Track-CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV assays for prediction of protection from CMV reactivation in kidney transplant recipients

QuantiFERON-CMV as a Predictor of CMV Events During Preemptive Therapy in CMV-seropositive Kidney Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after kidney transplantation is costly and burdensome.

METHODS

Given its promising utility in risk stratification, we evaluated the use of QuantiFERON-CMV (QFCMV) and additional clinical variables in this prospective cohort study to predict the first clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMV, ranging from asymptomatic viremia requiring treatment to CMV disease) in the first posttransplant year. A cost-effectiveness analysis for guided prevention was done.

RESULTS

One hundred adult kidney transplant recipients, CMV IgG + , were given basiliximab induction and maintained on steroid/mycophenolate/tacrolimus with weekly CMV monitoring. Thirty-nine patients developed CS-CMV infection (viral syndrome, n = 1; end-organ disease, n = 9; and asymptomatic viremia, n = 29). A nonreactive or indeterminate QFCMV result using the standard threshold around day 30 (but not before transplant) was associated with CS-CMV rates of 50% and 75%, respectively. A higher QFCMV threshold for reactivity (>1.0 IU interferon-γ/mL) outperformed the manufacturer's standard (>0.2 IU interferon-γ/mL) in predicting protection but still allowed a 16% incidence of CS-CMV. The combination of recipient age and type of donor, along with posttransplant QFCMV resulted in a prediction model that increased the negative predictive value from 84% (QFCMV alone) to 93%. QFCMV-guided preemptive therapy was of lower cost than preemptive therapy alone ( P  < 0.001, probabilistic sensitivity analysis) and was cost-effective (incremental net monetary benefit of 210 USD) assuming willingness-to-pay of 2000 USD to avoid 1 CMV disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Guided CMV prevention by the prediction model with QFCMV is cost-effective and would spare from CMV surveillance in 42% of patients with low risk for CS-CMV.

Cytomegalovirus Cell-mediated Immunity Assays in Pediatric Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric transplantation. However, currently utilized CMV prevention paradigms have limitations, leading to research aimed at novel strategies for mitigation of CMV infection. Cell-mediated immunity (CMI) is crucial in controlling CMV infection and the use of CMV-specific CMI assays to guide prevention and treatment of CMV infection in both solid organ transplant and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients shows great promise. In this article, we review the immune response to CMV infection to highlight the rationale for CMI assays, describe available commercial assays and strategies for their use, and summarize relevant literature regarding the use of CMI assays in transplant recipients.

Using a commercially available assay that measures cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific T-cell immunity to predict protection against CMV: A prospective, blinded clinical study

The Viracor CMV-T-cell immunity Panel (TCIP) measures %CMV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells. In this blinded clinical study, we evaluated the performance of the TCIP in predicting CMV events. Prospectively enrolled donor or recipient CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients (KTR) were evaluated with monthly TCIP testing until either discontinuation of valganciclovir prophylaxis or CMV DNAemia prompting treatment initiation. Also, prospectively enrolled KTR with low-level untreated DNAemia or after completion of treatment were evaluated for progression or relapse of CMV infection. Among 46 KTR, those with CMV events had significantly lower %CMV-specific CD8+ T-cells (p = 0.024), and the CMV protection ROC AUC was significant (AUC 0.78, p = 0.026). The positive predictive values of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell positivity >0.2 % for CMV protection were: 96.3 % for CMV DNAemia prompting treatment initiation, 92.6 % for any DNAemia, 100 % for DNAemia >1000 IU/mL. The TCIP could be a useful adjunct tool in individualized management of CMV infection.

Management of Cytomegalovirus Infections in the Era of the Novel Antiviral Players, Letermovir and Maribavir

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections may increase morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Until recently, standard antiviral drugs against CMV were limited to viral DNA polymerase inhibitors (val)ganciclovir, foscarnet and cidofovir with a risk for cross-resistance. These drugs may also cause serious side effects. This narrative review provides an update on new antiviral agents that were approved for the prevention and treatment of CMV infections in transplant recipients. Letermovir was approved in 2017 for CMV prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive adults who received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Maribavir followed four years later, with an indication in the treatment of adult and pediatric transplant patients with refractory/resistant CMV disease. The target of letermovir is the CMV terminase complex (constituted of pUL56, pUL89 and pUL51 subunits). Letermovir prevents the cleavage of viral DNA and its packaging into capsids. Maribavir is a pUL97 kinase inhibitor, which interferes with the assembly of capsids and the egress of virions from the nucleus. Both drugs have activity against most CMV strains resistant to standard drugs and exhibit favorable safety profiles. However, high-level resistance mutations may arise more rapidly in the UL56 gene under letermovir than low-grade resistance mutations. Some mutations emerging in the UL97 gene under maribavir can be cross-resistant with ganciclovir. Thus, letermovir and maribavir now extend the drug arsenal available for the management of CMV infections and their respective niches are currently defined.

Current Perspectives on the Management of Herpesvirus Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at high risk of human herpesvirus (HHV)-related morbidity and mortality due to the use of immunosuppressive therapy. We aim to increase awareness and understanding of HHV disease burden in SOTRs by providing an overview of current prevention and management strategies as described in the literature and guidelines. We discuss challenges in both prevention and treatment as well as future perspectives.

Immune-checkpoint expression in antigen-presenting cells (APCs) of cytomegaloviruses infection after transplantation: as a diagnostic biomarker

Cytomegalovirus (CMV), a member of the Herpesviridae family, mostly causes only slight feverish symptoms or can be asymptomatic in immunocompetent individuals. However, it is known to be particularly a significant cause of morbidity in immunocompromised patients, including transplant recipients, whose immune system has been weakened due to the consumption of immunosuppressor drugs. Therefore, the diagnosis of CMV infection after transplantation is crucial. New diagnostic methods for the quick detection of CMV have been developed as a result of understanding the clinical importance of invasive CMV. Antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and T cells are important components of the immune system and it may be possible to diagnose viral infections using immunological markers, such as lymphocytosis, cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL), and serum cytokine levels. Moreover, PD-1, CTLA 4, and TIGIT, which are expressed on certain T cells and antigen-presenting cells, are over-expressed during the infection. The assessment of CMV infection based on T cell and APC activity, and the expression of immunological checkpoints, can be helpful for the diagnosis of transplant patients at risk for CMV infection. In this review, we will investigate how immune checkpoints affect immune cells and how they impair organ transplantation after CMV infection.

Cytomegalovirus Immunity Assays Predict Viremia but not Replication Within the Lung Allograft

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection causes significant morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients. Current guidelines use pretransplant donor and recipient CMV serostatus to predict the risk of subsequent CMV replication and length of antiviral prophylaxis. Immunological monitoring may better inform the risk of CMV infection in patients, thereby allowing for improved tailoring of antiviral prophylaxis. In this study, we compared 2 commercially available assays, the QuantiFERON-CMV (QFN-CMV) and T-Track-CMV (enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay), to predict the risk of CMV disease in lung transplant recipients.

Methods

We performed CMV immunity assays on 32 lung transplant recipients at risk of CMV disease as defined by serostatus (CMV-seropositive recipients, n = 26; or CMV-seronegative lung transplant recipient receiving a CMV-seropositive donor organ, n = 6). QFN-CMV and T-Track were performed on peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and episodes of CMV replication in both serum and bronchoalveolar lavage were found to be correlated to the CMV immune assays. The predictive ability of the assays was determined using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results

There was a degree of concordance between tests, with 44% of recipients positive for both tests and 28% negative for both tests; however, test results were discordant in 28% of cases. A negative result in either the QFN-CMV (P < 0.01) or T-Track (P < 0.05) assays was obtained in a significantly higher number of recipients who experienced CMV replication in the blood. Using these assays together gave higher predictability of CMV replication, with only 1 recipient experiencing CMV replication in the blood who obtained a positive test result for both assays. Neither assay was able to predict recipients who experienced CMV replication in the lung allograft.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that CMV immunity assays can predict viremia; however, the lack of association with allograft infection suggests that CMV-specific T-cell immunity in the circulation is not associated with the control of CMV replication within the transplanted lung allograft.

Torque teno virus viremia and QuantiFERON®-CMV assay in prediction of cytomegalovirus reactivation in R+ kidney transplant recipients

Introduction

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most frequent infectious complication following solid organ transplantation. Torque teno viruses (TTV) viremia has been proposed as a biomarker of functional immunity in the management of kidney transplant recipients (KTR). The QuantiFERON^®-CMV (QF-CMV) is a commercially available assay that allows the assessment of CD8⁺ T-cell responses in routine diagnostic laboratories.

Methods

In a prospective national multicenter cohort of 64 CMV-seropositive (R+) KTR, we analyzed the value of TTV load and the two markers of the QF-CMV assay [QF-Ag (CMV-specific T-cell responses) and QF-Mg (overall T-cell responses)], alone and in combination, in prediction of CMV reactivation (≥3 log₁₀ IU/ ml) in the first post-transplant year. We compared previously published cut-offs and specific cut-offs optimized from ROC curves for our population.

Results

Using the conventional cut-off (3.45 log₁₀ copies/ml), TTV load at D0 [inclusion visit on the day of transplantation before induction (D0)], or at M1 (1-month post-transplant visit) perform better in predicting CMV viremia control than CMV reactivation. Survival analyses suggest a better performance of our optimized TTV cut-offs (3.78 log₁₀ copies/ml at D0 and 4.23 log₁₀ copies/ml at M1) for risk stratification of CMV reactivation in our R+ KTR cohort. The QF-CMV (QF-Ag = 0.2 IU/ml, and QF-Mg = 0.5 IU/ml) also appears to better predict CMV viremia control than CMV reactivation. Moreover, survival analyses suggest that the QF-Mg would perform better than the QF-Ag in stratifying the risk of CMV reactivation. The use of our optimized QF-Mg cut-off (1.27 IU/ml) at M1 further improved risk stratification of CMV reactivation. Using conventional cut-offs, the combination of TTV load and QF-Ag or TTV load and QF-Mg did not improve prediction of CMV viremia control compared to separate analysis of each marker but resulted in an increase of positive predictive values. The use of our cut-offs slightly improved risk prediction of CMV reactivation.

Conclusion

The combination of TTV load and QF-Ag or TTV load and QF-Mg could be useful in stratifying the risk of CMV reactivation in R+ KTR during the first post-transplant year and thereby have an impact on the duration of prophylaxis in these patients.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registry, identifier NCT02064699.

Immunological monitoring after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV, are they the same?

BACKGROUND

CMV-reactivation and -disease is still a major concern after allogeneic stem cell transplantation [allo-HSCT], despite prophylactic and pre-emptive strategies. In recent years, immunologic monitoring using CMV-IGRA has gained interest to better risk stratify immunocompromised patients or to guide prophylactic therapies. CMV-IGRA can quantify CMV cell-mediated immunity by measuring the interferon-gamma that is released by CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocytes in the presence of CMV-antigens. However, the two most widely used CMV-IGRAs, T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV, have not yet been compared in the setting of an allo-HSCT.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a method comparison between the T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV 28 and 100 days after allo-HSCT, and to assess predictive values of both tests for CMV-reactivation.

STUDY DESIGN

In a bicentric prospective trial, 27 patients were included. Samples were taken on day +28 and day +100 after allo-HSCT. Patients' clinical information was collected up to 270 days after the transplant. Method comparison was performed using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

On day +28 (n=26) after allo-HSCT T-SPOT.CMV gave three positive test results, and QuantiFERON-CMV only two. On day +100 (n=24) T-SPOT.CMV gave seven positive test results, and QuantiFERON-CMV nine. One discordant result was obtained at day +28 (n=26), while six results were discordant at day +100 (n=24). Method comparison showed a strong agreement on day +28 (κ = 0.780 [95% CI: 0.366-1.000]), but only a moderate agreement on day +100 (κ = 0.442 [95% CI: 0.070-0.814]) and on pooled data from both time points (κ = 0.578 [95% CI: 0.300-0.856]). Four clinically significant CMV infections, (CS-CMVi) were observed, all occurring after discontinuation of letermovir-prophylaxis. None of those four patients had a positive result with either test at day +100 (or day +28). Negative predictive values (NPV) and sensitivity are therefore very high at 100% (for both tests, for NPV and sensitivity, measured at day +100). At day+100, positive predictive values (PPV) and specificity were considerably lower (T-SPOT.CMV: PPV 23.5% and specificity 35% - QuantiFERON-CMV: PPV 26.7% and specificity 45%).

CONCLUSION

T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV only have a moderate agreement (at day +100) after allo-HSCT. Although these IGRAs are very promising, as shown by their very high negative predictive values for protection against CS-CMVi, they are not interchangeable. Future research should stipulate which IGRA was used, and future guidelines should preferably be assay-specific. As the QuantiFERON-CMV to date still lacks a large validation study after allo-HSCT, the moderate agreement with the T-SPOT.CMV poses a significant hurdle in the routine implementation of this test.

Transition from antigenemia to quantitative nucleic acid amplification testing in cytomegalovirus-seropositive kidney transplant recipients receiving preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus infection

Due to the high costs, the strategy to reduce the impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) after kidney transplant (KT) involves preemptive treatment in low and middle-income countries. Thus, this retrospective cohort study compared the performance of antigenemia transitioned to quantitative nucleic acid amplification testing, RT-PCR, in CMV-seropositive KT recipients receiving preemptive treatment as a strategy to prevent CMV infection. Between 2016 and 2018, 363 patients were enrolled and received preemptive treatment based on antigenemia (n = 177) or RT-PCR (n = 186). The primary outcome was CMV disease. Secondarily, the CMV-related events were composed of CMV-infection and disease, which occurred first. There were no differences in 1-year cumulative incidence of CMV-disease (23.7% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.41), CMV-related events (50.8% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.20), neither in time to diagnosis (47.0 vs. 47.0 days) among patients conducted by antigenemia vs. RT-PCR, respectively. The length of CMV first treatment was longer with RT-PCR (20.0 vs. 27.5 days, p < 0.001), while the rate of retreatment was not different (14.7% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.48). In the Cox regression, acute rejection within 30 days was associated with an increased the risk (HR = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.12-4.89; p = 0.024), while each increase of 1 mL/min/1.73 m² of 30-day eGFR was associated with a 2% reduction risk of CMV-disease (HR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.97-0.99; p = 0.001). In conclusion, acute rejection and glomerular filtration rate are risk factors for CMV disease, showing comparable performance in the impact of CMV-related events between antigenemia and RT-PCR for preemptive treatment.

QuantiFERON-Cytomegalovirus Assay for Prediction of Cytomegalovirus Viremia in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Study From High Cytomegalovirus Seroprevalence Country

Background

Early studies showed the utility of pretransplant QuantiFERON-Cytomegalovirus (QF-CMV) assays for CMV-disease prediction post kidney transplant (KT). However, recent data are conflicting.

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled adult patients undergoing KT between July 2017 and May 2019. Patients with antithymocyte globulin therapy or negative pretransplant CMV IgG were excluded. QF-CMV assays were performed on transplantation day and one month thereafter, and CMV viral loads were obtained 1, 3, and 6 months posttransplantation. The primary outcome was CMV viremia within 6 months. The QF-CMV assay–posttransplant CMV viremia association was analyzed.

Results

Fifty-five patients were enrolled (male, 58.2%; mean (SD) age, 46.5 (10.2) years). Fifty-two (94.5%) received CMV-seropositive donor kidneys. Over 6 months, 29 patients developed CMV viremia (52.7%), with 14 (25.5%) having significant viremia requiring antiviral therapy. The CMV-viremia incidence of patients with nonreactive and reactive baseline QF-CMV assays did not differ significantly (55.3% and 47.1%; p = 0.573). Among patients with reactive pretransplant QF-CMV assays, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of CMV viremia for those who were persistently reactive at 1 month after KTs, although there was no statistically significant difference (50% vs 83%; p = 0.132).

Conclusions

Our study could not support the use of single-timepoint pretransplant or 1-month posttransplant QF-CMV assays as a predictor for posttransplant CMV viremia in CMV seropositive KT recipients. Investigation of the association between dynamic QF-CMV-status changes and CMV-viremia incidence are needed.

Laboratory diagnostic testing for cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant patients

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is one of the most common complications in transplant recipients, increases the risk of graft loss and rejection. Laboratory strategies for diagnosing CMV infection rely on the measurement of viral DNAemia and CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI). The CMV quantitative nucleic acid amplification test (QNAT) enabled the spread of preemptive therapy and prompted recommendations for surveillance, diagnosis, and monitoring. Despite the implementation of the World Health Organization international standard for calibration, variability of QNAT persists due to technical issues. CMV immunoglobulin G serology is the standard method for CMV immune screening of transplant candidates and donors. Assays for CMV-CMI play an important role in helping to predict the risk and to develop an individualized CMV management plan. Genotypic testing for resistance is needed when drug-resistant CMV infection is suspected. Here, we review the state of the art of laboratory tests for CMV infection in solid organ transplantation.

Cytomegalovirus infection in liver-transplanted children

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication of liver trans-plantation in children. The CMV serostatus of recipients and donors is the primary risk factor, and prophylaxis or pre-emptive strategies are recommended for high-risk patients. Graft rejection, coinfection and Epstein-Bar virus reactivation, which can lead to post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, are indirect effects of CMV infection. Assessment of CMV infection viral load should be routinely performed upon clinical suspicion. However, tissue-invasive CMV disease is not associated with CMV viraemia and requires confirmation by tissue pathology. Oral valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir are equivalent treatments, and the duration of treatment depends on factors including CMV viral load, tissue pathology, and clinical response. Risk stratification by donor and recipient status prior to transplantation and post-transplantation antiviral prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy are recommended. Adult guidelines have been established but additional study of the effectiveness of the preventive guidelines in children is needed. This review summarizes the burden, risk factors, clinical manifestations, laboratory evaluation, treatment, and prevention of CMV infection in children after liver transplantation.

Comparison of Humoral and Cellular CMV Immunity in Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplantation

Chronic kidney disease may alter antiviral T cell immunity. In the current study, we assessed in 63 patients prior to kidney transplantation how humoral and cellular immunity against cytomegalovirus (CMV) correlated using an interferon (IFN)-γ ELISpot (T-Track^® CMV, Mikrogen, Neuried, Germany). The cohort comprised 24 patients with negative and 39 with positive CMV IgG. Whereas none of the patients with negative CMV IgG showed detectable responses to the T-Track^® CMV, 26 out of 39 patients with positive CMV IgG had positive ELISpot responses. The median response to CMV pp65 in the CMV seronegative group was 0 spot forming units (SFU) per 200,000 PBMC (range 0–1) and in the seropositive group 43 SFU (range 0–750). Thus, 13 out of 39 patients with positive CMV serostatus (33%) had undetectable T cell immunity and may be at an increased risk of CMV reactivation. CMV pp65-specific ELISpot responses were 29.3-fold higher in seropositive patients with vs. without dialysis and 5.6-fold higher in patients with vs. without immunosuppressive therapy, but patients with dialysis and immunosuppressive therapy showed, as expected, lower responses to phytohemagglutinin, the positive control. This finding may be caused by (subclinical) CMV-DNAemia and a “booster” of CMV-specific T cells.

Combined Therapy with Intravenous Immunoglobulins, Letermovir and (Val-)Ganciclovir in Complicated Courses of CMV-Infection in Transplant Recipients

The treatment options for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in immunosuppressed patients are limited, mainly consisting of (val-)ganciclovir (VGC/GCV) as the first-line treatment. We report on three transplant recipients, one stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) patient and two kidney transplant (KTx) recipients, with prolonged CMV viremia treated with a combined therapy based on letermovir (LMV), CMV-specific intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg), and VGC/GCV, which led to the sustained control of CMV viremia in all patients.

Comparison of Three Cellular Assays to Predict the Course of CMV Infection in Liver Transplant Recipients

To estimate protection from cytomegalovirus (CMV) replication after solid organ transplantation, CMV serology has been considered insufficient and thus CMV immunity is increasingly assessed by cellular in vitro methods. We compared two commercially available IFN-γ ELISpot assays (T-Track CMV and T-SPOT.CMV) and an IFN-γ ELISA (QuantiFERON-CMV). Currently, there is no study comparing these three assays. The assays were performed in 56 liver transplant recipients at the end of antiviral prophylaxis and one month thereafter. In CMV high- or intermediate-risk patients the two ELISpot assays showed significant correlation (p < 0.0001, r > 0.6) but the correlation of the ELISpot assays with QuantiFERON-CMV was weaker. Results of both ELISpot assays were similarly predictive of protection from CMV-DNAemia ≥500 copies/mL [CMV pp65 T-SPOT.CMV at the end of prophylaxis: area under curve (AUC) = 0.744, cut-off 142 spot forming units (SFU), sensitivity set to 100%, specificity 46%; CMV IE-1 T-Track CMV at month 1: AUC = 0.762, cut-off 3.5 SFU, sensitivity set to 100%, specificity 59%]. The QuantiFERON-CMV assay was inferior, reaching a specificity of 23% when setting the sensitivity to 100%. In conclusion, both CMV-specific ELISpot assays appear suitable to assess protection from CMV infection/reactivation in liver transplant recipients.

Virus-specific T cells in pediatric renal transplantation

After pediatric kidney transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy causes an increased risk of severe viral complications, especially from cytomegalovirus (CMV), BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) or Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and less frequent from adenovirus (ADV). However, suitable predictive markers for the individual outcome of viral infections are missing and the therapeutic management remains a challenge to the success of pediatric kidney transplantation. Virus-specific T cells are known for controlling viral replication and there is growing evidence that virus-specific T cells may serve as a prognostic marker to identify patients at risk for viral complications. This review provides an overview of the usability of virus-specific T cells for improving diagnostic and therapeutic management of viral infections with reference to the necessity of antiviral prophylaxis, timing of pre-emptive therapy, and dosing of immunosuppressive medication after pediatric kidney transplantation. Several studies demonstrated that high levels of virus-specific T cells are associated with decrease of virus load and favorable outcome, whereas lack of virus-specific T cells coincided with virus-induced complications. Accordingly, the additional monitoring of virus-specific T cells aims to personalize the management of antiviral therapy, identify overimmunosuppression, and avoid unnecessary therapeutic interventions. Prospective randomized trials in pediatric kidney recipients comparing standard antiviral and immunosuppressive regimens with T cell-guided therapeutic interventions are needed, before monitoring of virus-specific T cells is implemented in the routine care of pediatric kidney graft recipients.

How I treat CMV reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation remains one of the most common and life-threatening infectious complications following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, despite novel diagnostic technologies, several novel prophylactic agents, and further improvements in preemptive therapy and treatment of established CMV disease. Treatment decisions for CMV reactivation are becoming increasingly difficult and must take into account whether the patient has received antiviral prophylaxis, the patient's individual risk profile for CMV disease, CMV-specific T-cell reconstitution, CMV viral load, and the potential drug resistance detected at the time of initiation of antiviral therapy. Thus, we increasingly use personalized treatment strategies for the recipient of an allograft with CMV reactivation based on prior use of anti-CMV prophylaxis, viral load, the assessment of CMV-specific T-cell immunity, and the molecular assessment of resistance to antiviral drugs.

Progress and Challenges in the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplantation

Hosts with compromised or naive immune systems, such as individuals living with HIV/AIDS, transplant recipients, and fetuses, are at the highest risk for complications from cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Despite substantial progress in prevention, diagnostics, and treatment, CMV continues to negatively impact both solid-organ transplant (SOT) and hematologic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. In this article, we summarize important developments in the field over the past 10 years and highlight new approaches and remaining challenges to the optimal control of CMV infection and disease in transplant settings.

Cytomegalovirus-Specific T Cell Epitope Recognition in Congenital Cytomegalovirus Mother-Infant Pairs

Background: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is the most common infection acquired before birth and from which about 20% of infants develop permanent neurodevelopmental effects regardless of presence or absence of symptoms at birth. Viral escape from host immune control may be a mechanism of CMV transmission and infant disease severity. We sought to identify and compare CMV epitopes recognized by mother-infant pairs. We also hypothesized that if immune escape were occurring, then one pattern of longitudinal CD8 T cell responses restricted by shared HLA alleles would be maternal loss (by viral escape) and infant gain (by viral reversion to wildtype) of CMV epitope recognition. Methods: The study population consisted of 6 women with primary CMV infection during pregnancy and their infants with cCMV infection. CMV UL83 and UL123 peptides with known or predicted restriction by maternal MHC class I alleles were identified, and a subset was selected for testing based on several criteria. Maternal or infant cells were stimulated with CMV peptides in the IFN-γ ELISpot assay. Results: Overall, 14 of 25 (56%; 8 UL83 and 6 UL123) peptides recognized by mother-infant pairs were not previously reported as CD8 T cell epitopes. Of three pairs with longitudinal samples, one showed maternal loss and infant gain of responses to a CMV epitope restricted by a shared HLA allele. Conclusions: CD8 T cell responses to multiple novel CMV epitopes were identified, particularly in infants. Moreover, the hypothesized pattern of CMV immune escape was observed in one mother-infant pair. These findings emphasize that knowledge of paired CMV epitope recognition allows exploration of viral immune escape that may operate within the maternal-fetal system. Our work provides rationale for future studies of this potential mechanism of CMV transmission during pregnancy or clinical outcomes of infants with cCMV infection.

Prospective Assessment of Cytomegalovirus Immunity in High-Risk Donor-Seropositive/Recipient-Seronegative Liver Transplant Recipients Receiving Either Preemptive Therapy or Antiviral Prophylaxis

The differential impact of preemptive therapy (PET) and antiviral prophylaxis (AP) on development of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific neutralizing antibody (nAb) and T-cell responses have not previously been directly compared in high-risk donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D+R-) organ transplant recipients. We prospectively assessed T-cell and nAb responses 3 months after transplantation in cohorts of high-risk D+R- liver transplant recipients who received either PET (n = 15) or AP (n = 25) and a control group of CMV-seropositive transplant recipients (R+) (AP; n = 24). CMV phosphoprotein 65 (pp65)- and immediate early protein 1-specific multifunctional T-cell responses were determined by means of intracellular cytokine staining and nAbs against BADrUL131-Y4 CMV in adult retinal pigment epithelial cell line-19 human epithelial cells; nAbs were detected in 8 of 12 (67%) in the PET group, none of 17 in the AP group, and 20 of 22 (91%) in the R+ group. Multifunctional CD8 and CD4 T-cell responses to pp65 were generally similar between PET and R+ groups, and lower for the AP group; multifunctional CD4 responses were similar across all groups. Among D+R- liver transplant recipients, PET was associated with the development of greater nAb and multifunctional CD8 T-cell responses compared with AP, providing a potential mechanism to explain the relative protection against late-onset disease with PET. Future studies are needed to define specific immune parameters predictive of late-onset CMV disease with AP.

Cytomegalovirus Infection in Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: State of the Evidence

This review focuses on recent advances in the field of cytomegalovirus (CMV). The 2 main strategies for CMV prevention are prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. Prophylaxis effectively prevents CMV infection after solid organ transplantation (SOT) but is associated with high rates of neutropenia and delayed-onset postprophylaxis disease. In contrast, preemptive therapy has the advantage of leading to lower rates of CMV disease and robust humoral and T-cell responses. It is widely used in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients but is infrequently utilized after SOT due to logistical considerations, though these may be overcome by novel methods to monitor CMV viremia using self-testing platforms. We review recent developments in CMV immune monitoring, vaccination, and monoclonal antibodies, all of which have the potential to become part of integrated strategies that rely on viral load monitoring and immune responses. We discuss novel therapeutic options for drug-resistant or refractory CMV infection, including maribavir, letermovir, and adoptive T-cell transfer. We also explore the role of donor factors in transmitting CMV after SOT. Finally, we propose a framework with which to approach CMV prevention in the foreseeable future.

Clinical experience with a novel assay measuring cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell immunity by flow cytometry and intracellular cytokine staining to predict clinically significant CMV events

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common opportunistic infections following organ transplantation, despite administration of CMV prophylaxis. CMV-specific T-cell immunity (TCI) has been associated with reduced rates of CMV infection. We describe for the first time clinical experience using the CMV T-Cell Immunity Panel (CMV-TCIP), a commercially available assay which measures CMV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses, to predict clinically significant CMV events.

METHODS

Adult (> 18-year-old) patients with CMV-TCIP results and ≥ 1 subsequent assessment for CMV DNAemia were included at Brown University and the University of Maryland Medical Center-affiliated hospitals between 4/2017 and 5/2019. A clinically significant CMV event was defined as CMV DNAemia prompting initiation of treatment. We excluded indeterminate results, mostly due to background positivity, allogeneic hematopoetic cell transplant (HCT) recipients, or patients who were continued on antiviral therapy against CMV irrespective of the CMV-TCIP result, because ongoing antiviral therapy could prevent a CMV event.

RESULTS

We analyzed 44 samples from 37 patients: 31 were solid organ transplant recipients, 4 had hematologic malignancies, 2 had autoimmune disorders. The CMV-protection receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) was significant for %CMV-specific CD4+ (AUC: 0.78, P < 0.001) and borderline for CD8+ (AUC: 0.66, P = 0.064) T-cells. At a cut-off value of 0.22% CMV-specific CD4+ T-cells, positive predictive value (PPV) for protection against CMV was 85% (95%CI 65-96%), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 67% (95%CI 41-87%).

CONCLUSIONS

The CMV-TCIP, in particular %CMV-specific CD4+ T-cells, showed good diagnostic performance to predict CMV events. The CMV-TCIP may be a useful test in clinical practice, and merits further validation in larger prospective studies.

CMV Prevention and Treatment in Transplantation: What's New in 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transplant recipients are at risk for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and associated morbidity and mortality. We summarize recently introduced or currently investigated modalities for prevention and treatment of CMV infection in hematopoietic cell (HCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Letermovir was recently approved for CMV prevention in HCT recipients. Data from real world studies support its role to improve outcomes in this population. Letermovir is currently under investigation for broader patient populations and indications. Maribavir is in late stages of development for CMV treatment and may provide a safer alternative to currently available anti-CMV drugs. Promising CMV vaccine candidates and adoptive cell therapy approaches are under evaluation. CMV immune monitoring assays are predicted to play a more central role in our clinical decision making. In recent years, major advances have been made in CMV prevention and treatment in transplant recipients. Rigorous research is ongoing and is anticipated to further impact our ability to improve outcomes in this population.

A prospective multicenter observational study of cell-mediated immunity as a predictor for cytomegalovirus infection in kidney transplant recipients

T cell immunity is essential for the control of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after transplantation. We evaluated a CMV-specific peptide-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISPOT) assay to determine whether assay results could predict subsequent CMV events. Adult kidney transplant recipients at 43 centers underwent ELISPOT testing to enumerate interferon gamma (IFN-γ) binding spot-forming units (sfu) after stimulation of cells with an overlapping peptide pool of CMV phosphoprotein 65 (pp65) and immediate early-1 (IE-1) protein at the end of antiviral prophylaxis (EOP) and various time points thereafter. The primary outcome was a CMV event in the first posttransplant year. In 583 kidney transplant recipients (260 seropositive donor [D+]/seronegative recipient [R-] and 277 R+), CMV events occurred in 44 of 368 eligible patients (11.8%) at a median of 227 days (range 92-360) posttransplant. A cutoff value of >40 sfu/2.5 × 10⁵  cells for either IE-1 or pp65 was derived as a threshold for positivity, with a negative predictive value of >97% for CMV events. CMV events were significantly lower in assay positive vs assay negative patients (3.0% vs 19.5%, P < .0001 for pp65). Time to CMV event post-EOP was significantly greater in those with sfu >40 at EOP (P < .0001). In this large, multicenter trial of kidney transplant recipients, we show that an assessment of CMV-specific immunity using a novel ELISPOT assay is able to predict protection from CMV infection.

An update on the treatment of cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Introduction: Human Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Standard treatment options have for long been limited to a small number of effective drugs with significant toxicities.Areas covered: In this manuscript, the authors update a previous review summarizing recent developments in the virology lab and their possible implications for treatment strategies at bedside. In particular, the authors focused on new antiviral drugs already available and under investigation in clinical trials and innovative immunotherapeutic approaches, including adoptive T-cell therapy and vaccines.Expert opinion: Broader knowledge of CMV biology and its relationship with the host immune system is greatly contributing to the development of novel therapeutic approaches. The availability of new drugs, the improved techniques for virological testing and the more accurate patient risk stratification allow to better individualize treatment, limiting toxicity while sparing antiviral effects. The role of immunotherapy is clearly emerging and will further expand our treatment armamentarium.

Assessment and prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant and in solid organ transplant: A multidisciplinary consensus conference by the Italian GITMO, SITO, and AMCLI societies

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients. In view of the uncertainties on the assessment and prevention of CMV infection in both transplant procedures, three Italian scientific societies for HSCT and SOT and for Clinical Microbiology appointed a panel of experts to compose a framework of recommendations. Recommendations were derived from a comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature and from a multidisciplinary consensus conference process. The lack of adequate clinical trials focused on certain diagnostic procedures, and antiviral intervention forced the panel to use the methods of consensus for shaping some recommendations. Recommendations concerning the two types of transplant were given for the following issues: assessment of pretransplant CMV serostatus, immunological monitoring after transplant, CMV prophylaxis with antivirals, CMV preemptive strategy, and CMV prophylaxis with immunoglobulin infusion and with adoptive immunotherapy. The questions raised by and the recommendations resulting from this consensus conference project may contribute to the improvement of certain crucial aspects of the management of CMV infections in allo-HSCT and in SOT populations.

Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients-Guidelines of the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common opportunistic infections that affect the outcome of solid organ transplantation. This updated guideline from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice provides evidence-based and expert recommendations for screening, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. CMV serology to detect immunoglobulin G remains as the standard method for pretransplant screening of donors and transplant candidates. Antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are the mainstays of CMV prevention. The lack of a widely applicable viral load threshold for diagnosis and preemptive therapy is highlighted, as a result of variability of CMV nucleic acid testing, even in the contemporary era when calibrators are standardized. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir remain as drugs of choice for CMV management. Strategies for managing drug-resistant CMV infection are presented. There is an increasing use of CMV-specific cell-mediated immune assays to stratify the risk of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation, but their role in optimizing CMV prevention and treatment efforts has yet to be demonstrated. Specific issues related to pediatric transplant recipients are discussed.

Letermovir for prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus manifestations in adult allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) manifestations remain important complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), even in the current era. Unfortunately, available anti-CMV agents, mainly viral polymerase inhibitors, have a substantial risk of myelosuppression and nephrotoxicity. Letermovir, a novel anti-CMV drug that targets the viral terminase complex, has recently been approved for the prevention of clinically significant CMV infection in adult CMV seropositive hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients. This molecule could become a paradigm-shifting drug in preventing CMV manifestations based on its novel mechanism of action, lack of cross-resistance with available drugs, proven efficacy in a large randomized clinical trial, and its beneficial toxicity and tolerability profile. Drug-drug interactions and the lack of any activity against other viruses are the main shortcomings of letermovir.

The Cytomegalovirus-Specific IL-21 ELISpot Correlates with Allograft Function of Kidney Transplant Recipients

In kidney transplant recipients, the cytomegalovirus (CMV) is frequently causing infection/reactivation and can trigger allograft rejection. To assess the risk of reactivation, the cellular immune response against CMV is increasingly assessed by cellular in vitro methods, such as the interferon (IFN)-γ ELISpot. In the current study we compared the IFN-γ ELISpot with our newly established CMV-specific ELISpot assays determining IL-17A, IL-21, IL-22, granzyme B, and perforin and correlated the results with flow cytometric data and clinical parameters. In 77 kidney transplant recipients, the highest frequency was observed for CMV pp65-specific cells secreting IFN-γ, followed by cells secreting IL-21 (62.9 and 23.2 Δ spot forming cells/10⁵ cells). We observed a positive correlation between the percentage of CMV-specific CD3+ CD4+ CD154+ cells and results of the CMV-specific IL-21 ELISpot (p = 0.002). Results of the CMV pp65-specific IL-21 ELISpot correlated negatively with kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate, p = 0.006) and were significantly higher in women (p = 0.005). IL-21, a cytokine involved in aging that is secreted by activated CD4+ T cells, may also impact on allograft function. Thus, the CMV-specific IL-21 ELISpot could become a new tool to assess if CMV seropositivity represents a hazard for the graft.