Kang KW, Jeon MJ, Yu ES, Kim DS, Lee BH, Lee SR, Choi CW, Park Y, Kim BS, Sung HJ. Cytomegalovirus reactivation under pre-emptive therapy following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant: Pattern, survival, and risk factors in the Republic of Korea.
PLoS One 2023;
18:e0291268. [PMID:
37703263 PMCID:
PMC10499250 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0291268]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Pre-emptive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation has been used in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). It is unclear if this strategy has poorer clinical outcomes in CMV-endemic areas and if more aggressive prophylaxis is required.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the patterns and survival after CMV reactivation in patients undergoing pre-emptive therapy following allo-HSCT and assessed high-risk patients who could benefit from aggressive CMV prophylaxis in endemic areas.
RESULTS
Of the 292 patients who underwent allo-HSCT, 70.5% (donor+ or recipient+) were CMV seropositive. CMV reactivation occurred in 139 patients (47.6%), with a median of 31.5 days from day 0 of allo-HSCT. The overall survival of patients with CMV reactivation who received pre-emptive therapy did not differ from those without reactivation. Of the 139 patients with CMV reactivation, 78 (56.1%) underwent ≥2 rounds of pre-emptive therapy. In multivariate analysis, the risk of CMV reactivation was higher in patients with multiple myeloma, with CMV seropositivity of the recipient and donor, administered with a higher dose of anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), and with acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) ≥ grade 2.
CONCLUSION
Although half of the patients with allo-HSCT were administered with pre-emptive therapy for CMV, CMV reactivation did not affect their survival, indicating the advantages of pre-emptive therapy, even in CMV-endemic areas. The cost-effectiveness of more aggressive CMV prophylaxis should be re-evaluated in patients at a high risk for CMV reactivation.
Collapse