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

Dynamics of cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell recovery in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients using a commercially available flow cytometry assay: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI) protects from CMV infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), but to date, there is no validated measure of CMV immunity for this population.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational, pilot study, CMV T-cell responses were evaluated monthly and at onset of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or CMV infection in CMV-seropositive allo-HCT recipients using a commercial flow cytometry assay, the CMV inSIGHT T-Cell Immunity Panel (CMV-TCIP). The primary endpoint was the time to first positive CMV-TCIP, defined as percentage of interferon-γ-producing CD4+ or CD8+ CMV-specific T cells >0.2%. Letermovir was prescribed from day +10 to ≥100.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight allo-HCT recipients were enrolled. The median time to first positive CMV-TCIP result was earlier for CD4+ (60 days [interquartile range, IQR 33‒148]) than for CD8+ T cells (96 days [IQR 33‒155]) and longer for haploidentical and mismatched transplant recipients (77 and 96 days, respectively) than for matched donors (45 and 33 days, respectively). CD4+ and CD8+ CMV-CMI recovery was sustained in 10/10 (100%) and 10/11 (91%) patients, respectively, without GVHD, whereas CD4+ and/or CD8+ CMV-CMI was lost in 4/6 and 2/6 patients, respectively, with GVHD requiring steroids. As a predictor of clinically significant CMV infection in patients with low-level CMV reactivation, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of CMV-TCIP were 90% and 87.5%, respectively, for CD4+ CMV-TCIP and 66.7% and 62.5%, respectively, for CD8+ CMV-TCIP.

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant variability in time to CMV-CMI recovery post-HCT, with slower recovery after haploidentical and mismatched HCT. CD4+ CMV-CMI may protect against CS-CMVi, but immunity may be lost with GVHD diagnosis and treatment.

Immunomonitoring via ELISPOT Assay Reveals Attenuated T-Cell Immunity to CMV in Immunocompromised Liver-Transplant Patients

Assessing immune responses to cytomegalovirus (CMV) after liver transplant in patients on immunosuppressive therapy remains challenging. In this study, employing ELISPOT assays, 52 liver-transplant recipients were evaluated for antiviral T-cell activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), measuring interferon-γ (IFN-γ) secretion upon stimulation with CMV-specific peptides (CMV peptide pool, CMV IE-1, and pp65 antigens). Parameters such as stimulation index, mean spot size, and mean spot count were measured. The study found that heightened immunosuppression, especially with prednisolone in triple therapy, significantly dampened CMV-specific immune responses. This was demonstrated by decreased IFN-γ production by CMV-specific T-cells (CMV peptide pool: p = 0.036; OR = 0.065 [95% CI: 0.005-0.840], pp65 antigen: p = 0.026; OR = 0.048 [95% CI: 0.003-0.699]). Increased immunosuppression correlated with reduced IFN-γ secretion per cell, reflected in smaller mean spot sizes for the CMV peptide pool (p = 0.019). Notably, shorter post-transplant intervals correlated with diminished antiviral T-cell IFN-γ release at two years (CMV peptide pool: p = 0.019; IE antigen: p = 0.010) and five years (CMV peptide pool: p = 0.0001; IE antigen: p = 0.002; pp65 antigen: p = 0.047), as did advancing age (pp65 antigen: p = 0.016, OR = 0.932, 95% CI: 0.881-0.987). Patients with undetectable CMV antigens had a notably higher risk of CMV reactivation within six months from blood collection, closely linked with triple immunosuppression and prednisolone use. These findings highlight the intricate interplay between immunosuppression, immune response dynamics, and CMV reactivation risk, emphasizing the necessity for tailored immunosuppressive strategies to mitigate CMV reactivation in liver-transplant recipients. It can be concluded that, particularly in the early months post-transplantation, the use of prednisolone as a third immunosuppressant should be critically reconsidered. Additionally, the use of prophylactic antiviral therapy effective against CMV in this context holds significant importance.

What's New: Updates on Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common infections occurring after solid organ transplantation. This high burden of disease, which incurs sizeable morbidity, may be worsening with the proportion of high-risk D+/R- solid organ transplantation recipients increasing in some regions globally. Cohort studies continue to support either universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy as effective prevention strategies. Letermovir prophylaxis was noninferior to valganciclovir in adult high-risk D+/R- kidney transplant recipients with fewer drug-related adverse events in a recent clinical trial and has now been approved for such use in some regions. Maribavir preemptive therapy failed to demonstrate noninferiority when compared with valganciclovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients but looked promising for safety. Donor matching could be useful in prevention CMV disease with a survival advantage demonstrated in seronegative recipients waiting up to 30 mo for a seronegative kidney. Immune-guided prophylaxis resulted in fewer CMV infection episodes in lung transplant recipients when compared with fixed-duration prophylaxis in a recent clinical trial. For treatment of refractory or resistant CMV infection, maribavir was more efficacious and better tolerated when compared with investigator-initiated therapy in its registration trial for this condition. Further research regarding best treatment and prophylaxis of resistant or refractory CMV infection is needed to reflect best clinical practice choices. Optimal use of immune globulin or CMV-specific T cells for prevention or treatment of CMV disease remains undefined. Standardized definitions for the design of CMV clinical trials have been developed. In this review, we highlight recent updates in the field from data published since 2018.

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.

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.

ELISPOT assays with pp65 peptides or whole HCMV antigen are reliable predictors of immune control of HCMV infection in seropositive kidney transplant recipients

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection represents a major complication for solid organ transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to verify if the measurement of HCMV-specific T-cells could help to identify patients protected against HCMV disease cytokine flow cytometry using infected dendritic cells as stimulus (CFC-iDC, which discriminates between CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells), and ELISPOT, using infected cell lysate (ELISPOT-iCL) or pp65 (ELISPOT-pp65) as stimulus, were adopted. Among the 47 kidney transplant recipients (KTR) enrolled, 29 had a self-resolving HCMV infection (Controllers) and 18 required antiviral treatment (Non-Controllers). HCMV-specific T-cell frequency at the peak of HCMV infection identified Controllers and Non-Controllers, although the diagnostic performance of CD8⁺ CFC-iDC (area under the curve [AUC] of the receiver-operator characteristic curve: 0.65) was lower than that of CD4⁺ CFC-iDC (AUC: 0.83), ELISPOT-iCL (AUC: 0.83) and ELISPOT-pp65 (AUC: 0.80). CFC-iDC detected a protective immune reconstitution significantly earlier (median time: 38 days) than ELISPOT-iCL and ELISPOT-pp65 (median time: 126 and 133 days, respectively). Time to protective immune reconstitution in Non-Controllers was significantly longer than in Controllers with the ELISPOT and the CD4⁺ CFC-iDC assays, but not with CD8⁺ CFC-iDC. The majority of patients did not require antiviral treatment after protective immune reconstitution, with the exception of five patients according to CFC-iDC assay, one patient according to ELISPOT-iCL assay and three patients according to ELISPOT-pp65 assay. Monitoring the HCMV-specific immunological reconstitution with is effective in discriminating KTR at risk of or protected from HCMV disease and the ELISPOT assays are suitable for implementation in the clinical setting.

A consensus conference to define the utility of advanced infectious disease diagnostics in solid organ transplant recipients

The last decade has seen an explosion of advanced assays for the diagnosis of infectious diseases, yet evidence-based recommendations to inform their optimal use in the care of transplant recipients are lacking. A consensus conference sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) was convened on December 7, 2021, to define the utility of novel infectious disease diagnostics in organ transplant recipients. The conference represented a collaborative effort by experts in transplant infectious diseases, diagnostic stewardship, and clinical microbiology from centers across North America to evaluate current uses, unmet needs, and future directions for assays in 5 categories including (1) multiplex molecular assays, (2) rapid antimicrobial resistance detection methods, (3) pathogen-specific T-cell reactivity assays, (4) next-generation sequencing assays, and (5) mass spectrometry-based assays. Participants reviewed and appraised available literature, determined assay advantages and limitations, developed best practice guidance largely based on expert opinion for clinical use, and identified areas of future investigation in the setting of transplantation. In addition, attendees emphasized the need for well-designed studies to generate high-quality evidence needed to guide care, identified regulatory and financial barriers, and discussed the role of regulatory agencies in facilitating research and implementation of these assays. Findings and consensus statements are presented.

Getting immunosuppression just right: the role of clinical biomarkers in predicting patient response post solid organ transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Actually, immunosuppression selection isn't based on individual immune alloreactivity, and immunosuppressive drug dosing is mainly based on the development of toxicity and the achievement of specific target concentrations. Since a successful outcome requires optimal patient risk stratification and treatment, several groups have evaluated candidate biomarkers that have shown promise in the assessment of individual immune responses, the prediction of personal pharmacodynamic effects of immunosuppressive drugs and the prognosis and diagnosis of graft outcomes..

AREAS COVERED

This review includes biomarkers that the Scientific Community in Solid Organ Transplantation currently considers to have potential as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of graft evolution. We have focused on recent scientific advances and expert recommendations regarding the role of specific and non-specific pharmacodynamic biomarkers that are mainly involved in the T-cell-mediated response.

EXPERT OPINION

Integral pharmacologic monitoring that combines pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenetics and predictive pharmacodynamic biomarkers may provide crucial information and allow personal adjustment of immunosuppressive drugs at an early stage before severe adverse events ensue. Multicentre, randomized, prospective and interventional trials are needed to fine tune the established cut-off values for each biomarker and the optimal monitoring frequency for each biomarker and to accurately evaluate possible clinical confounding factors to enable correct clinical qualification.

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.