Therapeutic Effect of the Acquisition of Cytomegalovirus-Specific Immune Response During Preemptive Treatment

Cytomegalovirus Cell-Mediated Immunity: Ready for Routine Use?

Utilizing assays that assess specific T-cell-mediated immunity against cytomegalovirus (CMV) holds the potential to enhance personalized strategies aimed at preventing and treating CMV in organ transplantation. This includes improved risk stratification during transplantation compared to relying solely on CMV serostatus, as well as determining the optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis, deciding on antiviral therapy when asymptomatic replication occurs, and estimating the risk of recurrence. In this review, we initially provide an overlook of the current concepts into the immune control of CMV after transplantation. We then summarize the existent literature on the clinical experience of the use of immune monitoring in organ transplantation, with a particular interest on the outcomes of interventional trials. Current evidence indicates that cell-mediated immune assays are helpful in identifying patients at low risk for replication for whom preventive measures against CMV can be safely withheld. As more data accumulates from these and other clinical scenarios, it is foreseeable that these assays will likely become part of the routine clinical practice in organ transplantation.

Role of cytomegalovirus specific cell-mediated immunity in the monitoring of cytomegalovirus infection among living donor liver transplantation adult recipients: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common post-transplant viral infections causing significant morbidity and occasional mortality. Limited literature on the potential role of pre-transplant CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI) is available. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of pre-transplant CMV-CMI monitoring in the occurrence of post-transplant CMV infection.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study where all adult CMV seropositive patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation at a tertiary care institute were enrolled. CMV-CMI was measured using QuantiFERON-CMV (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany) and interpreted as positive if the value was ≥0.2 IU/ml, 1-2 days prior to the transplant. Based on pre-transplant CMV-CMI, cases were classified into Group 1 (n = 13, 43.3%) (positive) and Group 2 (n = 17, 56.7%) (negative). CMV infection was defined as the detection of CMV-DNA > 2.7 log₁₀ IU/ml in plasma specimens.

RESULTS

The mean age was 43 years with male (n = 29, 96.9%) predominance. Overall 40% of recipients developed post-transplant CMV infection, two (15.4%) in group 1 and 10 (58.8%) in group 2 (p-value = 0.016). Recipients in group 2 had 87% higher odds (odds ratio 0.13, confidence interval [CI] 95) of developing post-transplant CMV infection compared to group 1. The overall median duration of occurrence of post-transplant CMV infection was 26 days with the median viral load being 2.8 log₁₀ IU/ml. The treatment duration was 13 days in group 1 and 28 days in group 2 (p = 0.003). Group 1 recipients showed rapid clearance of CMV-DNA within 7 days compared to group 2 in which it was 21 days (p = 0.004, CI 95).

CONCLUSION

Pre-transplant CMV-CMI may play a protective role against post-transplant CMV infection and can serve as an adjunct for pre-transplant risk stratification.

Pretransplant CMV-Specific T-Cell Immunity But Not Dose of Antithymocyte Globulin Is Associated With Recovery of Specific Immunity After Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study in cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive kidney transplant recipients with pretransplant CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI) receiving antithymocyte globulin (ATG). We aimed to investigate posttransplant CMV-CMI over time and the impact of the dose-dependent ATG.

METHODS

CMV-CMI was assessed at days +30, +45, +60, and +90 after transplantation with the QuantiFERON-CMV assay. A reactive result (interferon-γ [IFN-γ] ≥ 0.2 IU/mL) indicated a positive CMV-CMI.

RESULTS

A total of 78 positive CMV-CMI patients were enrolled in the study, of which 59.5% had a positive CMV-CMI at day +30 and 82.7% at day +90. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that ATG dose was not associated with positive CMV-CMI at any point. However, pretransplant IFN-γ level (>12 IU/mL vs ≤12 IU/mL) was associated with positive CMV-CMI at day +30 (odds ratio, 12.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.1-53.3; P < .001). In addition, all the patients who did not recover CMV-CMI at day +90 had a pretransplant IFN-γ level ≤12 IU/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients receiving ATG recover (or maintain) CMV-CMI by the first month after transplantation. The pretransplant IFN-γ level, but not the ATG dose, shows a strong association with the kinetics of this recovery.

Effect of Preemptive Therapy vs Antiviral Prophylaxis on Cytomegalovirus Disease in Seronegative Liver Transplant Recipients With Seropositive Donors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Despite the use of a cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention strategy of antiviral prophylaxis for high-risk CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors, high rates of delayed-onset postprophylaxis CMV disease occur. An alternate approach, preemptive therapy (initiation of antiviral therapy for early asymptomatic CMV viremia detected by surveillance testing), has not previously been directly compared with antiviral prophylaxis in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare preemptive therapy with antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors for the prevention of CMV disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial of preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis in 205 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors aged older than 18 years. The trial was conducted at 6 academic transplant centers in the United States between October 2012 and June 2017, with last follow-up in June 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either preemptive therapy (valganciclovir, 900 mg, twice daily until 2 consecutive negative tests a week apart) for viremia detected by weekly plasma CMV polymerase chain reaction for 100 days (n = 100) or valganciclovir, 900 mg, daily for 100 days as antiviral prophylaxis (n = 105).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was incidence of CMV disease by 12 months, defined as CMV syndrome (CMV viremia and clinical or laboratory findings) or end-organ disease. Secondary outcomes included acute allograft rejection, opportunistic infections, graft and patient survival, and neutropenia.

RESULTS

Among 205 patients who were randomized (mean age, 55 years; 62 women [30%]), all 205 (100%) completed the trial. The incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower with preemptive therapy than antiviral prophylaxis (9% [9/100] vs 19% [20/105]; difference, 10% [95% CI, 0.5% to 19.6%]; P = .04]). The incidence of allograft rejection (28% vs 25%; difference, 3% [95% CI, -9% to 15%]), opportunistic infections (25% vs 27%; difference, 2% [95% CI, -14% to 10%]), graft loss (2% vs 2%; difference, <1% [95% CI, -4% to 4%]), and neutropenia (13% vs 10%; difference, 3% [95% CI, -5% to 12%]) did not differ significantly for the preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis group, respectively. All-cause mortality at last follow-up was 15% in the preemptive therapy vs 19% in the antiviral prophylaxis group (difference, 4% [95% CI, -14% to 6%]; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors, the use of preemptive therapy, compared with antiviral prophylaxis, resulted in a lower incidence of CMV disease over 12 months. Further research is needed to replicate these findings and assess long-term outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552369.

Monitoring of CMV-Specific Cell-Mediated Immunity in Kidney Transplant Recipients With a High Risk of CMV Disease (D+/R-): A Case Series

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common viral pathogen in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), and CMV disease impacts patient and graft survivals. CMV-specific CD8 T cell mediated-immunity (CMI) may help to assess the risk of CMV disease and to adapt preventive treatment strategies. High-risk KTRs with CMV seropositive donors/seronegative recipients (D+/R-) were prospectively monitored after CMV prophylaxis discontinuation and during the first year post transplant for CMV viremia (World Health Organization standardization) and CMI (QuantiFERON-CMV). We analyzed the ability of CMI test to predict either subsequent spontaneous viral clearance or CMV disease after prophylaxis discontinuation in patients with asymptomatic viremia. We enrolled 12 consecutive (D+/R-) KTRs. Eleven patients developed a viremia during follow-up, but 7 of them (64%) exhibited a spontaneous viral clearance. At viremia onset, 6 of 11 patients (55%) had a positive CMI test, and all of them (6 of 6, 100%) had subsequent spontaneous viral clearance, compared with only 1 of 5 patients (20%) displaying a nonreactive CMI (P = .02). This latter patient exhibited a positive CMI test 15 days after viremia onset. Four of the 11 patients (36%) developed a CMV disease, and their CMI either remained nonreactive or became positive only after antiviral treatment. We conclude that D+/R- KTRs with asymptomatic viremia after prophylaxis discontinuation may benefit from QuantiFERON-CMV to predict when positive for the spontaneous viral clearance or when persistently negative or the development of a CMV disease.

Impact of pretransplant CMV-specific T-cell immune response in the control of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Although solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with pretransplant serology for cytomegalovirus (CMV-R+) are considered at intermediate risk for CMV infection post transplantation, CMV infection remains a major cause of morbidity in this population. We prospectively characterized whether having pretransplant CMV-specific cellular immunity is independently associated with controlling infection after transplantation in R + SOT recipients.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of consecutive R + SOT recipients that received pre-emptive treatment for CMV infection was monitored after transplantation and variables were recorded during the follow-up. The cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell immune response was characterized by intracellular cytokine staining and viral loads determined using real-time PCR.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-five R + SOT recipients were included (67 kidney, 64 liver, four liver-kidney). Only one-third of the patients (42; 31.85%) had CMV-specific T-cell immunity (CD8⁺CD69⁺INF-γ⁺ T cells >0.25%) before transplantation. Patients with negative pretransplant immunity had more CMV infection (49, 52.7% vs. 15, 35.7%; p 0.07) and received more antiviral therapy than those with immunity (32, 34.4% vs. 6, 14.3%, p 0.016). Having CMV specific immunity was an independent factor for protection from developing viraemia ≥2000 IU/mL (OR 0.276, 95% CI 0.105-0.725, p < 0.01) and lower administration of treatment (OR 0.398, 95% CI 0.175-0.905, p 0.028). Only patients with no pretransplant CMV-specific T-cell response were diagnosed with CMV-disease (8, 8.6% vs. 0, 0%, p 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Our results show that having a pretransplant CMV specific T-cell response may be associated with a lower rate of CMV viraemia and less antiviral treatment after transplantation; however, more prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Regular monitoring of cytomegalovirus-specific cell-mediated immunity in intermediate-risk kidney transplant recipients: predictive value of the immediate post-transplant assessment

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies on monitoring of post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) are limited by single-centre designs and disparate risk categories. We aimed to assess the clinical value of a regular monitoring strategy in a large multicentre cohort of intermediate-risk kidney transplant (KT) recipients.

METHODS

We recruited 124 CMV-seropositive KT recipients with no T-cell-depleting induction pre-emptively managed at four Spanish institutions. CMV-specific interferon-γ-producing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells were counted through the first post-transplant year by intracellular cytokine staining after stimulation with pp65 and immediate early-1 peptides (mean of six measurements per patient). The primary outcome was the occurrence of any CMV event (asymptomatic infection and/or disease). Optimal cut-off values for CMV-specific T cells were calculated at baseline and day 15.

RESULTS

Twelve-month cumulative incidence of CMV infection and/or disease was 47.6%. Patients with pre-transplant CMV-specific CD8⁺ T-cell count <1.0 cells/μL had greater risk of CMV events (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.84; p 0.054). When the CMI assessment was performed in the immediate post-transplant period (day 15), the presence of <2.0 CD8⁺ T cells/μL (aHR 2.18; p 0.034) or <1.0 CD4⁺ T cells/μL (aHR 2.43; p 0.016) also predicted the subsequent development of a CMV event. In addition, lower counts of CMV-specific CD4⁺ (but not CD8⁺) T cells at days 60 and 180 were associated with a higher incidence of late-onset events.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring for CMV-specific CMI in intermediate-risk KT recipients must be regular to reflect dynamic changes in overall immunosuppression and individual susceptibility. The early assessment at post-transplant day 15 remains particularly informative.

Analysis of spontaneous resolution of cytomegalovirus replication after transplantation in CMV-seropositive patients with pretransplant CD8+IFNG+ response

This prospective study evaluates whether CMV-seropositive (R+) transplant patients with pretransplant CD8+IFNG+ T-cell response to cytomegalovirus (CMV) (CD8+IFNG+ response) can spontaneously clear the CMV viral load without requiring treatment. A total of 104 transplant patients (kidney/liver) with pretransplant CD8+IFNG+ response were evaluable. This response was determined using QuantiFERON-CMV assay. The incidence of CMV replication and disease was 45.2% (47/104) and 6.7% (7/104), respectively. Of the total patients, 77.9% (81/104) did not require antiviral treatment, either because they did not have CMV replication (n = 57) or because they had asymptomatic CMV replication that could be spontaneously cleared (n = 24). Both situations are likely related to the presence of CD8+IFNG+ response to CMV, which has a key role in controlling CMV infection. However, 22.1% of the patients (23/104) received antiviral treatment, although only 7 of them did so because they had symptomatic CMV replication. These patients developed symptoms in spite of having pretransplant CD8+IFNG+ response, thus suggesting that other immunological parameters might be involved, such as a dysfunctional CD4⁺ response or that they might have become QFNon-reactive due to the immunosuppression. In conclusion, around 80% of R+ patients with pretransplant CD8+IFNG+ response to CMV did not require antiviral treatment, although this percentage might be underestimated. Nevertheless, other strategies such as performing an additional CD8+IFNG+ response determination at posttransplant time might provide more reliable information regarding the patients who will be able to spontaneously clear the viremia.

Kinetic of the CMV-specific T-cell immune response and CMV infection in CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients receiving rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin induction therapy: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested that rATG treatment may be associated with an increased incidence of CMV infection and delayed CMV immune response. However, the evidences supporting this matter are scarce. This study aims to characterize the kinetic of the CMV-specific T-cell immune response before and after rATG induction therapy and the relationship with the development of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

An observational prospective study of CMV-seropositive kidney transplant patients that received rATG induction therapy was performed. A pretransplant sample was obtained before the surgery to determine the CMV-specific immunity. CMV viral load (by PCR) and CMV-specific T-cell immune response (by flow cytometry) were determined during the follow-up at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months post transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were included in the study. CMV prophylaxis was administrated for a media of 90 days after transplantation. At the end of follow-up, 18 (78.3%) patients had CMV-specific immunity with a median value of 0.31% CD8⁺ CD69⁺ INF-γ⁺ T cells at a median of 16 weeks post transplantation. Five patients never acquired CMV-specific immunity. No statistically significant association between CMV infection and CMV-specific T-cell immune response (P = .086) was observed. However, patients with positive pretransplant CMV-specific immunity developed earlier immunity and achieved higher levels of CD8⁺ CD69⁺ INF-γ+ T-cell post-transplantation than patients with negative pretransplant immunity.

CONCLUSIONS

CMV-specific immune monitoring in addition to CMV-serology may be useful to stratify patient's risk of CMV infection before transplantation.

CMV-specific T-cell immunity in solid organ transplant recipients at low risk of CMV infection. Chronology and applicability in preemptive therapy

OBJECTIVES

To characterize whether the CMV-specific cellular immune response can be used as a predictor of the control of CMV infection and disease and determine thresholds in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients seropositive for CMV (R+).

METHODS

The CMV-specific T-cell response was characterized using intracellular cytokine staining and the evolution of clinical and virological parameters were recorded during the first year after transplantation.

RESULTS

Besides having positive CMV serology, only 28.4% patients had positive immunity (CD8⁺CD69⁺IFN-γ⁺ ≥0.25%) at 2 weeks after transplantation. These patients had less indication of preemptive treatment (p = 0.025) and developed less high grade (≥2000 IU/ml) CMV replication episodes (p = 0.006) than patients with no immunity. Of the 49 patients with a pretransplant sample, only 22.4% had positive immunity, and had a detectable immune response early after transplantation (median of 3.7 weeks). However, only 50% of patients with negative pretransplant immunity acquired a positive immune response and it was significantly later, at a median of 11 weeks (p < 0.001). Patients that developed CMV disease had no CMV-specific immunity.

CONCLUSIONS

Having CMV-specific CD8⁺IFN-γ⁺ cells ≥0.25% before transplant; 0.15% at two weeks or 0.25% at four weeks after transplantation, identifies patients that may spontaneously control CMV infection and may require less monitoring.

Prevention strategies differentially modulate the impact of cytomegalovirus replication on CD8(+) T-cell differentiation in high-risk solid organ transplant patients

The present study aimed to determine whether antiviral prevention strategies against cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection used in high-risk D+R- solid organ transplanted patients can modulate the impact of CMV replication on CD8(+) T-cell differentiation. The different CD8(+) T-cell subpopulations were measured at a single point when at least one year had elapsed since transplantation. A total of 68 D+R- patients were included, of which 33 underwent pre-emptive therapy and 35 received prophylaxis. Multivariate analysis showed that CMV replication was associated with the expansion of CD28־ EMRA CD8(+) T cells in patients managed pre-emptively but not in patients under prophylaxis (21.4% vs. 3.6%). This finding is likely related to the higher frequency of CMV recurrence observed in patients under pre-emptive therapy compared to those under prophylaxis (75% vs. 14.3%; p < 0.001). In fact, multivariate analysis showed that having more than one replication episode was associated with a 17.2% increase (p = 0.001) in the percentage of CD28־ EMRA CD8(+) T cells compared to "no episode" and with a 10.9% increase with respect to "single episodes" (p = 0.025). Additionally, patients with IFNγ response to CMV (QuantiFERON-CMV Reactive) had a higher percentage of late-differentiated CD8(+) T cells than patients lacking this response. In summary, recurrent CMV replication in D+R- patients under pre-emptive therapy was associated with the expansion of CD28־ EMRA CD8(+) T cells, which might have a short-term beneficial effect related to the high functionality of this T-cell subpopulation. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out that this accumulation might have a long-term detrimental effect related to immunosenescence and inflammation.

Use of antibodies neutralizing epithelial cell infection to diagnose patients at risk for CMV Disease after transplantation

OBJECTIVES

Although a CMV-specific T-cell response is associated with reduced risk for infection after transplantation, some patients still develop CMV disease. Thus, the characterization of additional parameters of the CMV-specific immune response that correlate with the control of CMV infection and disease and their use in defining thresholds that can be applied to clinical practice is of interest.

METHODS

In a cohort of high risk solid organ transplant recipients we characterized CMV-specific T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine staining upon stimulation with pp65 and IE-1 peptides, and levels of CMV-specific antibodies neutralizing infection in fibroblast (MRC-5) and epithelial (ARPE-19) cells using microneutralization assays.

RESULTS

Although patients with a positive (≥0.25%CD8(+)CD69(+)IFN-γ+) T-cell response were 6.4 fold more protected (OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.6-25.3; p < 0.001) from CMV infection than patients without a response, 2 (4.2%) patients developed disease. We defined a cut-off titer for epithelial cell neutralizing antibodies of ≥480 that correlated with disease protection. Thus, patients with a CMV-specific T-cell response and titers ≥480 were 14.2 fold more protected from CMV infection (OR 14.2, 95% CI 5-40.2; p < 0.001) and had no episodes of CMV disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that antibodies neutralizing epithelial cell infection may have an important role in long-term protection. Quantification of antibodies neutralizing epithelial cells, in addition to the T-cell response, may be useful for identifying patients with lower risk for CMV disease.

Effect of long-term prophylaxis in the development of cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell immunity in D+/R- solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to characterize the dynamics of acquisition of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) in CMV donor positive/recipient negative solid organ transplant (SOT) patients receiving long-term antiviral prophylaxis, and to determine whether development of CMI confers protection against CMV disease.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter study was conducted in Spain from September 2009 to September 2012. Whole blood specimens were prospectively collected at 30, 90, 120, 200, and 365 days after SOT, and CMI was determined by enumeration of CMV pp65 and IE-1-specific CD69(+) /interferon-γ-producing CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cells by flow cytometry for intracellular cytokine staining. As part of a simultaneous clinical trial, patients received either early prophylaxis (in the first 3 days after transplantation) in the first period of the study or delayed prophylaxis (initiated at day 14) during the second period of the study. The impact of the dynamics of acquisition of CMV-specific CMI on the incidence of CMV disease was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 95 SOT recipients were recruited. CMV infection and disease occurred in 38 (40%) and 26 (27.4%) patients, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving any detectable CMV-specific CMI response at each of the different monitoring points was higher in liver transplant recipients, as compared to kidney or heart transplant recipients. The presence of any detectable response at day 120 or 200 was protective against the development of CMV disease (positive predictive values 92% and 93%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of acquisition of CMV-specific CMI in SOT recipients undergoing antiviral prophylaxis differed significantly between different SOT populations. Patients developing any detectable CMI response were protected against the occurrence of CMV disease.

Approaches for monitoring of non virus-specific and virus-specific T-cell response in solid organ transplantation and their clinical applications

Opportunistic viral infections are still a major complication following solid organ transplantation. Immune monitoring may allow the identification of patients at risk of infection and, eventually, the modulation of immunosuppressive strategies. Immune monitoring can be performed using virus-specific and non virus-specific assays. This article describes and summarizes the pros and cons of the different technical approaches. Among the assays based on non virus-specific antigens, the enumeration of T-cell subsets, the quantification of cytokines and chemokines and the quantification of intracellular adenosine triphosphate following mitogen stimulation are described and their clinical applications to determine the risk for viral infection are discussed. In addition, current specific methods available for monitoring viral-specific T-cell responses are summarized, such as peptide-MHC multimer staining, intracellular cytokine staining, enzyme-linked immunospot and virus-specific IFN-γ ELISA assays, and their clinical applications to determine the individual risk for opportunistic viral infections with human cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus and polyoma BK virus are discussed. The standardization of the procedure, the choice of the antigen(s) and the criteria to define cut-off values for positive responses are needed for some of these approaches before their implementation in the clinic. Nevertheless, immune monitoring combined with virological monitoring in transplant recipients is increasingly regarded as a helpful tool to identify patients at risk of infection as well as to assess treatment efficacy.

Effect of delaying prophylaxis against CMV in D+/R- solid organ transplant recipients in the development of CMV-specific cellular immunity and occurrence of late CMV disease

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the protective effect against late CMV disease of delaying antiviral prophylaxis initiation in D+/R- patients receiving solid organ transplant (SOT).

METHODS

Prospective multicenter study in D+/R- SOT recipients in Spain (Sept/09-Sept/12). Whole blood specimens were prospectively collected after Tx for CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) determination. Two prophylaxis strategies were compared: early prophylaxis (EP; starting within the first 3 days after Tx) and delayed prophylaxis (DP; starting 14 days after Tx). Risk factors for the occurrence of CMV disease were determined by survival analysis and proportional risk Cox regression models.

RESULTS

We included 95 patients (50 EP V 45 DP). Twenty six patients (27.4%) developed CMV disease: 32.7% EP vs. 20% DP; (p = 0.2). No cases of CMV disease were reported previously to beginning delayed prophylaxis. The percentage of individuals with detectable CMI response was higher in patients with DP although differences did not reach statistic significance (42% vs 29.6% at day 200 after Tx; p = 0.4). There was a clear trend towards less end-organ CMV disease in patients receiving DP (18.2% EP vs 5% DP; p = 0.09) and DP was the only protective factor in the multivariate analysis (HR: 0.26; CI: 0.05-1.2; p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

A 14-day delay in CMV prophylaxis in D+/R- SOT recipients is safe and may reduce the incidence of late CMV end-organ disease although correlation of this effect with CMI responses was not complete.

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV)-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are both required for prevention of HCMV disease in seropositive solid-organ transplant recipients

In solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTR) the protective role of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV)-specific CD4+, CD8+ and γδ T-cells vs. HCMV reactivation requires better definition. The aim of this study was to investigate the relevant role of HCMV-specific CD4+, CD8+ and γδ T-cells in different clinical presentations during the post-transplant period. Thirty-nine SOTR underwent virologic and immunologic follow-up for about 1 year after transplantation. Viral load was determined by real-time PCR, while immunologic monitoring was performed by measuring HCMV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (following stimulation with autologous HCMV-infected dendritic cells) and γδ T-cells by flow cytometry. Seven patients had no infection and 14 had a controlled infection, while both groups maintained CD4+ T-cell numbers above the established cut-off (0.4 cell/µL blood). Of the remaining patients, 9 controlled the infection temporarily in the presence of HCMV-specific CD8+ only, until CD4+ T-cell appearance; while 9 had to be treated preemptively due to a viral load greater than the established cut-off (3×10(5) DNA copies/mL blood) in the absence of specific CD4+ T-cells. Polyfunctional CD8+ T-cells as well as Vδ2- γδ T-cells were not associated with control of infection. In conclusion, in the absence of HCMV-specific CD4+ T-cells, no long-term protection is conferred to SOTR by either HCMV-specific CD8+ T-cells alone or Vδ2- γδ T-cell expansion.

Immune-based monitoring for cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplantation: is it ready for clinical primetime?

The impact of CMV infection and disease in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients continues despite remarkable improvements in its prevention and management with antiviral drugs. Studies that have investigated the host immune response to CMV have paved way for the development of novel immune-based assays that are anticipated to complement the current antiviral-based strategies for CMV management after transplantation. In this article, we review the emerging data on the clinical application of innovative CMV-specific T-cell assays, including their role in risk-stratification, prognostication, prevention and treatment of CMV infection and disease in SOT recipients.

Prevention strategies for cytomegalovirus disease and long-term outcomes in the high-risk transplant patient (D+/R-): experience from the RESITRA-REIPI cohort

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-negative recipients of a graft from a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-) are at high risk of CMV disease. Current preventive strategies include universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive therapy (PT). However, the best strategy to prevent CMV disease and achieve better long-term outcomes remains a matter of debate.

METHODS

We analyzed the incidence of CMV disease and long-term outcomes including graft dysfunction and patient mortality at 5 years after transplantation with both preventive strategies. High-risk (D+/R-) kidney and liver transplant recipients from the RESITRA cohort were included.

RESULTS

Of 2410 kidney or liver transplant patients, 195 (8.3%) were D+/R-. The final cohort included 58 liver and 102 kidney recipients. UP was given in 92 patients and 68 received PT; 10.9% and 36.8% developed CMV disease, respectively (P < 0.01). The independent risk factors for CMV disease were PT strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-6.9), kidney transplantation (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4-9.9), and cyclosporine immunosuppression (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.7). PT strategy was also a risk factor for CMV disease in both liver transplantation (HR, 11.0; 95% CI, 1.2-98.7) and kidney transplantation (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0), independently. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was a risk factor for graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-9.0). Nevertheless, no significant differences were seen in either graft dysfunction or mortality between the 2 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the benefit of the UP strategy to prevent CMV disease in D+/R- liver or kidney transplant patients. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was associated with graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation.

Impact of antiviral preventive strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

We assessed the impact of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy on the incidence and outcomes of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in a nationwide prospective cohort of solid organ transplant recipients. Risk factors associated with CMV disease and graft failure-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression models. One thousand two hundred thirty-nine patients transplanted from May 2008 until March 2011 were included; 466 (38%) patients received CMV prophylaxis and 522 (42%) patients were managed preemptively. Overall incidence of CMV disease was 6.05% and was linked to CMV serostatus (D+/R- vs. R+, hazard ratio [HR] 5.36 [95% CI 3.14-9.14], p < 0.001). No difference in the incidence of CMV disease was observed in patients receiving antiviral prophylaxis as compared to the preemptive approach (HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.63-2.17], p = 0.63). CMV disease was not associated with a lower graft failure-free survival (HR 1.27 [95% CI 0.64-2.53], p = 0.50). Nevertheless, patients followed by the preemptive approach had an inferior graft failure-free survival after a median of 1.05 years of follow-up (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.01-2.64], p = 0.044). The incidence of CMV disease in this cohort was low and not influenced by the preventive strategy used. However, patients on CMV prophylaxis were more likely to be free from graft failure.

Pretransplant interferon-γ secretion by CMV-specific CD8+ T cells informs the risk of CMV replication after transplantation

In this prospective study we analyzed pretransplant interferon-γ secretion by cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD8+ T cells to assess its possible utility in determining the risk of CMV replication after solid organ transplantation. A total of 113 lung and kidney transplant patients were enrolled in the study but only 55 were evaluable. All CMV-seronegative recipients were pretransplant "nonreactive" (IFNγ <0.2 IU/mL) (11/11), whereas 30/44 (68.2%) CMV-seropositive (R+) recipients were "reactive" (IFNγ ≥0.2 IU/mL) and 14/44 (31.8%) were "nonreactive". In the R(+) "nonreactive" group, 7/14 (50%) developed posttransplant CMV replication, whereas the virus replicated only in 4/30 (13.3%) of the R(+) "reactive" patients (p = 0.021). According to the best multivariate model, pretransplant "nonreactive" recipients receiving an organ from a CMV-seropositive donor had a 10-fold increased risk of CMV replication compared to pretransplant "reactive" recipients (adjusted OR 10.49, 95% CI 1.88-58.46). This model displayed good discrimination ability (AUC 0.80) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.92). Negative and positive predictive values were 83.7% and 75%, respectively. The accuracy of the model was 82%. Therefore, assessment of interferon-γ secretion by cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD8+ T cells prior to transplantation is useful in informing the risk of posttransplant CMV replication in solid organ transplant patients.

CMV: Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common infection after organ transplantation and has a major impact on morbidity, mortality and graft survival. Optimal prevention, diagnosis and treatment of active CMV infection enhance transplant outcomes, and are the focus of this section. Methods to prevent CMV include universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy; each has its merits, and will be compared and contrasted. Diagnostics have improved substantially in recent years, both in type and quality, allowing for more accurate and savvy treatment; advances in diagnostics include the development of an international standard, which should allow comparison of results across different methodologies, and assays for cellular immune function against CMV. Therapy primarily involves ganciclovir, now rendered more versatile by data suggesting oral therapy with valganciclovir is not inferior to intravenous therapy with ganciclovir. Treatment of resistant virus remains problematic, but is enhanced by the availability of multiple novel therapeutic agents.

Determination, validation and standardization of a CMV DNA cut-off value in plasma for preemptive treatment of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients at lower risk for CMV infection

BACKGROUND

Valganciclovir preemptive therapy guided by the viral load is the current strategy recommended for preventing CMV disease in CMV-seropositive Solid Organ Transplant Recipients (SOTR) at lower risk for developing CMV infection. However, universal viral load cut-off has not been established for initiating therapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to define and validate a standardized cut-off determined in plasma by real-time PCR assay for initiating preemptive therapy in this population.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study of consecutive cases of CMV-seropositive SOTR was carried out. The cut-off value was determined in a derivation cohort and was validated in the validation cohort. Viral loads were determined using the Quant CMV LightCycler 2.0 real-time PCR System (Roche Applied Science) and results were standardized using the WHO International Standard for human CMV.

RESULTS

A viral load of 3983 IU/ml (2600 copies/ml) was established as the optimal cut-off for initiating preemptive therapy in a cohort of 141 patients with 982 tests and validated in a cohort of 252 recipients with a total of 2022 test. This cut-off had a 99.6% NPV indicating that the great majority of patients at lower risk will not develop CMV disease without specific antiviral therapy. The high sensitivity and specificity (89.9% and 88.9%, respectively) and the relatively small numbers of patients with CMV disease confirm that real-time PCR was optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

We have established a cut-off viral load for starting preemptive therapy for CMV-seropositive SOT recipients. Our results emphasized the importance of a mandatory follow-up protocol for CMV-seropositive patients receiving preemptive treatment.

Advances in cytomegalovirus-preventive strategies in solid organ transplantation: defending pre-emptive therapy

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important part of clinical care provided to patients after solid organ transplantation. While the optimal preventive strategy has not been defined, most centers rely on universal prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy. This article comments on recent studies designed to identify strategies that effectively reduce the incidence of late-onset CMV disease as the main problem associated with prophylaxis, and on recent data regarding the development of CMV-specific immunity depending on the CMV-preventive regimen used. Despite an apparent trend to prefer prophylaxis in clinical practice, this approach does not seem to be based on robust evidence.

Prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an opportunistic infection frequently found after solid organ transplantation, and it contributes significantly to mortality and morbidity. CMV-seronegative recipients of grafts from CMV-seropositive donors have the highest risk of CMV disease. The most appropriate strategy for preventing CMV disease in this population is a matter of active debate. In this study, we compared prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV disease in donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D+ /R-) liver recipients. To this end, we selected a retrospective cohort of liver recipients (1992-2009) for analysis. D+ /R- patients were identified from the liver transplant program database. Eighty of 878 consecutive liver recipients (9%) were D+ /R-. Six of these patients died within 30 days of transplantation and were excluded. Thirty-five of the remaining D+ /R- patients (47%) received prophylaxis, and 39 patients (53%) followed a preemptive strategy based on CMV antigenemia surveillance. Fifty-four (73%) were men, the median age was 49 years (range = 15-68 years), and the mean follow-up was 68 months (range = 8-214 months). The baseline characteristics and the initial immunosuppressive regimens were similar for the 2 groups. Ganciclovir or valganciclovir was the antiviral drug used initially in both strategy groups. CMV disease occurred more frequently among D+ /R- liver recipients receiving preemptive therapy (33.3% versus 8.6% for the prophylaxis group, P = 0.01), whereas late-onset CMV disease was found only in patients receiving prophylaxis (5.7% versus 0% for the preemptive therapy group, P = 0.22). No significant differences in acute allograft rejection, other opportunistic infections, or case fatality rates were observed. According to our data, prophylaxis was more effective than preemptive therapy in preventing CMV disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients.

[Risk factors for cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients]

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic pathogen in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation and increases mortality due to both direct and indirect effects. The most important risk factor for the development of CMV disease is discordant donor-recipient CMV serology (positive donor and negative recipient), which confers more than 50% risk of developing CMV disease if no prophylaxis is given. The use of highly potent antiviral agents for CMV prophylaxis in high-risk patients has changed the characteristics of CMV disease in this population. Other classical risk factors for CMV disease include acute graft rejection, the type of organ transplanted, coinfection with other herpesviruses and the type of immunosuppressive agents employed. New risk factors for this complication have recently been described, including variations in the CMV genotype between donor and recipient and genetic alterations in the recipient's innate immunity. The present review discusses classical risk factors and the latest findings reported on the development of CMV in organ transplant recipients.

Long-term outcomes of pre-emptive valganciclovir compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus in renal transplantation

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) is essential in organ transplantation. The two main strategies are pre-emptive therapy, in which one screens for and treats asymptomatic CMV viremia, and universal antiviral prophylaxis. We compared these strategies and examined long-term outcomes in a randomized, open-label, single-center trial. We randomly assigned 70 renal transplant recipients (CMV-seropositive recipient or donor) to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (n=34) or pre-emptive valganciclovir for significant CMV viremia detected at predefined assessments through month 12 (n=36). Among the 55 patients who had a protocol biopsy specimen available at 3 years to allow assessment of the primary outcome, 9 (38%) of 24 patients in the prophylaxis group and 6 (19%) of 31 patients in the pre-emptive therapy group had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-8.43; P=0.22). The prophylaxis group had significantly higher intrarenal mRNA expression of genes involved in fibrogenesis. The occurrence of CMV disease was similar in both groups, but pre-emptive therapy improved 4-year graft survival (92% versus 74%; P=0.049) as a result of worse outcomes in patients with late-onset CMV viremia. In conclusion, compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis, pre-emptive valganciclovir therapy may lead to less severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and to significantly better graft survival.

[Prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplantation]

CMV prevention strategies in liver transplant recipients should be stratified according to serological status. In donor (D)-/recipient (R)- combinations, no prophylaxis or preemptive therapy is recommended. In the remaining combinations, the most widely used strategies are universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. Both strategies are effective compared with placebo but have not been compared with each other in well-designed clinical trials. Preemptive therapy is the preferred strategy in low-risk patients while prophylaxis is the most widely used option in those at high-risk. Delayed CMV disease is an adverse consequence of universal prophylaxis. Prolongation of prophylaxis from 100 to 200 days does not reduce the incidence of CMV disease. CMV-specific cell mediated immunity, facilitated by preemptive therapy and delayed by prophylaxis, has a therapeutic effect by reducing CMV replication. The drug of choice in both strategies is valganciclovir but the duration and dose differ. When preemptive therapy is used, viremia monitoring is required for the first 4 months. The technique of choice is quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Given the lack of conclusive data, the choice of one or other strategy in these patients should be individualized in each patient and center according to the available resources and possibilities of follow-up.

[Prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplantation]

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a major problem in renal transplant recipients. CMV produces not only febrile syndromes and/or visceral disease but also contributes to the development of acute rejection and chronic graft failure. Valganciclovir prophylaxis has represented a major advance in controlling this infection, but late CMV infection after prophylaxis can occur, especially when universal prophylaxis is used. The use of valganciclovir prophylaxis for 200 days is more effective than prophylaxis for 100 days but does not completely prevent this problem. Prophylaxis based on the detection of CMV viremia (early prophylaxis or preemptive therapy) may prevent the development of delayed CMV disease, but has the disadvantage of requiring more intensive monitoring of viremia and does not prevent the development of viremia and its potential consequences in the long term. This article reviews current recommendations for prophylaxis of CMV disease in renal transplantation.

Valganciclovir to prevent or treat cytomegalovirus disease in organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is generally considered the most significant pathogen to infect patients following organ transplantation. Significant improvements have been achieved in the management of CMV disease over recent years, especially since the introduction of oral drugs such as oral ganciclovir followed by valganciclovir (VGC), a prodrug of ganciclovir with enhanced bioavailability. Several randomized controlled trials have shown that VGC is an efficacious and convenient oral drug to prevent or treat CMV disease in solid-organ transplant recipients. In this article, we discuss the clinical and pharmacological experience with the use of VGC for the management of CMV in solid-organ transplant recipients. Finally, novel strategies to further reduce the incidence of CMV disease after transplantation are also reviewed.

First face composite-tissue transplant recipient successfully treated for cytomegalovirus infection with preemptive valganciclovir treatment

Little is known about cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after face transplantation, since only two of the 11 cases of face transplantation reported worldwide have documented a CMV infection after transplantation. Herein, we present the first report of a composite-tissue face allotransplant recipient at high risk for CMV infection (D(+)/R(-) [CMV serpositive donor positive/CMV seronegative receptor]) undergoing preemptive treatment. Preemptive treatment was safe and effective for controlling CMV infection and thus promoting early acquisition of a CMV-specific immune response that protected the patient from late-onset CMV disease.