Cytomegalovirus retinitis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation under cytomegalovirus antigenemia-guided active screening

Overview of Cytomegalovirus Ocular Diseases: Retinitis, Corneal Endotheliitis, and Iridocyclitis

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a significant clinical concern in newborns, immunocompromised patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy. CMV infection affects many organs, such as the lungs, digestive organs, the central nerve system, and eyes. In addition, CMV infection sometimes occurs in immunocompetent individuals. CMV ocular diseases includes retinitis, corneal endotheliitis, and iridocyclitis. CMV retinitis often develops in infected newborns and immunocompromised patients. CMV corneal endotheliitis and iridocyclitis sometimes develop in immunocompetent individuals. Systemic infections and CMV ocular diseases often require systemic treatment in addition to topical treatment.

Antiviral therapy defiant mixed viral retinitis post hematopoietic allogeneic stem cell transplant

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis is an uncommon presentation post allogeneic transplant and can be vision-threatening. Our case demonstrates the occurrence of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) proven mixed viral retinitis (cytomegalovirus and varicella zoster virus) post allogeneic stem cell transplant despite multiple prophylactic antiviral therapies, including letermovir, and in the documented absence of CMV DNAemia. A 21-year-old female with acute myeloid leukemia presented with mixed viral retinitis (cytomegalovirus and varicella zoster virus) post allogenic transplant. This presentation occurred despite ongoing standard prophylaxis for both of these viruses, as well as following two courses of treatment for CMV viremia, with a documented negative CMV PCR in the blood prior to the presentation with retinitis. The patient was treated with intravenous ganciclovir and subsequently transitioned to oral valganciclovir with durable resolution of the retinitis. We report a rare case of mixed viral retinitis occurring despite multiple antiviral prophylaxes including letermovir and with PCR-documented absence of preceding CMV viremia, in a post-allogeneic stem cell transplant patient, with PCR of the aqueous fluid demonstrating two viral populations. With very little existing literature on either mixed viral retinitis or CMV retinitis during letermovir prophylaxis, this case expands the literature on both topics. CMV retinitis is an uncommon potentially vision threatening presentation post hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and can occur due to early CMV reactivation, low CD4 count, and delayed CD4 lymphocyte recovery. Letermovir has poor CNS and retinal penetration. This case highlights the need for more research on secondary prophylaxis with letermovir.

Risk factor analysis for cytomegalovirus reactivation under prophylaxis with letermovir after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Letermovir has been approved as a novel cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylactic agent after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, there are still insufficient data to properly evaluate the real-world role of letermovir, and the risk factors for CMV reactivation under letermovir prophylaxis have not been clarified.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients under prophylaxis with or without letermovir who underwent allogeneic HSCT between March 2012 and December 2019. In August 2018, letermovir was added to the clinical practice at our institution for the prophylaxis of CMV reactivation in allogeneic HSCT recipients. Patients who underwent HSCT without prophylactic letermovir from March 2012 until September 2018 served as a historical control.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) was significantly lower in the letermovir group than in the historical control group not receiving letermovir (30.2% vs. 71.6%, p < .05, at 100 days). In addition, the cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) at day 500 was significantly lower in the letermovir group (4.7% vs. 19.8%, p < .05). We then performed a risk factor analysis for developing CS-CMVi in the letermovir group. The only significant factor identified by this multivariable analysis was transplantation from a CMV seronegative donor to a seropositive recipient (Hazard ratio = 2.76, 95% confidence interval 1.14-6.68, p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that letermovir prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of CS-CMVi and NRM in a real-world setting and that the CMV serostatus of the donor remained as a risk factor for CS-CMVi even under letermovir prophylaxis.

Early immune surveillance to predict cytomegalovirus outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

There is no method of predicting human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients clinically, leading in some cases to excessive or insufficient antiviral therapy. We evaluated the early immune response of recipients with disparate HCMV outcomes.

Methods

The HCMV outcomes of recipients were determined by long-term monitoring of HCMV DNA levels posttransplant. HCMV IgG and IgM concentrations at 1 week before and 1 week after transplantation, absolute lymphocyte counts, and HCMV-specific IFN-γ secreting cells at 1 month posttransplant were evaluated based on HCMV outcome.

Results

All recipients were negative for HCMV IgM. Significant differences between recipients with and without HCMV reactivation were observed in pre- and post-transplant HCMV IgG antibody levels, absolute lymphocyte counts, and HCMV-specific IFN-γ secreting cells (P &lt; 0.05). HCMV IgG antibody levels significantly increased after transplantation in recipients with HCMV reactivation (P = 0.032), but not in those without reactivation. Multivariate analysis revealed that except for the absolute lymphocyte count these biomarkers were related to HCMV reactivation, independent of other clinical factors. In time-to-event analyses, lower levels of these biomarkers were associated with an increased 150-day cumulative incidence of HCMV reactivation (log-rank P &lt; 0.05). In recipients with HCMV reactivation, the duration of HCMV DNAemia had negative correlation with HCMV-specific IFN-γ-secreting cells (P = 0.015, r = -0.372). The relationships between the peak HCMV DNA load and absolute lymphocyte count and HCMV-specific IFN-γ-secreting cells followed the same trends (P = 0.026, r = -0.181 and P = 0.010, r = -0.317).

Conclusions

HCMV IgG, absolute lymphocyte count, and HCMV-specific IFN-γ secreting cells represent the humoral and cellular immune response. Early monitoring of these immune markers could enable prediction of HCMV outcomes posttransplant and assessment of the severity of HCMV DNAemia.