Bimonthly viral monitoring for late-onset cytomegalovirus infection in kidney transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus Post-Prophylaxis Surveillance in High-Risk Kidney and Liver Recipients Prevents CMV End-Organ Disease and Ganciclovir-Resistance

PURPOSE

Evaluate cytomegalovirus (CMV) post-prophylaxis surveillance in high-risk (D+/R-) kidney and liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

Adult D+/R- patients were included if transplanted between 6/1/15 and 11/30/22 and divided into a pre-CMV-stewardship-era (6/1/15-5/31/18), CMV-stewardship-era (6/1/18-6/30/20), and a surveillance-era (7/1/2020-11/30/2022) then followed through 12 months. The primary objective was to evaluate CMV-related outcomes. The secondary objective was to assess graft and patient survival by era.

RESULTS

There were 328 patients in the study period; 133 in the pre-stewardship-era, 103 in the stewardship-era, and 92 in the surveillance-era. Replication rates in the surveillance-era were significantly higher, as anticipated due to increased sampling (pre 38.4%, stewardship 33.0%, surveillance 52.2%, p = 0.02). Time from transplant to first replication was similar (pre 214.0 ± 79.0 days, stewardship 231.1 ± 65.5, surveillance 234.9 ± 61.4, p = 0.29). CMV viral load (VL) at first detection, maximum-VL, and incidence of VL > 100 000 IU/mL were numerically lower in the surveillance era, although not statistically significant. CMV end-organ disease (p < 0.0001) and ganciclovir-resistance (p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the surveillance era than in both previous eras. Rejection was not different between eras (p = 0.4). Graft (p = 0.0007) and patient survival (p = 0.008) were significantly improved in the surveillance era.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-prophylaxis surveillance significantly reduced CMV end-organ disease and resistance. Despite observing increased replication rates in the surveillance era, rejection was not significantly different and there was no graft loss or patient mortality at 12 months.

Cytomegalovirus surveillance after antiviral prophylaxis in CMV mismatched transplant patients: Does recurrent cytomegalovirus DNAemia impact patient survival?

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) mismatched, donor IgG-positive/recipient IgG-negative, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at high risk of CMV invasive disease. Post-prophylaxis disease is an issue in this population. Some programs employ surveillance after prophylaxis (SAP) to limit the incidence of post-prophylaxis disease.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study that included all CMV mismatched SOTRs from 2003 to 2017. Patients underwent SAP with weekly CMV plasma viral load for 12 weeks. The subjects were classified into three post-prophylaxis DNAemia patterns: no DNAemia, one episode of DNAemia, and multiple episodes of DNAemia. We calculated the cumulative incidence of each DNAemia pattern. We also determined 5-year mortality based on DNAemia pattern stratified by organ transplant type.

RESULTS

Post-prophylaxis recurrent DNAemia occurred in 63% of lung recipients and 32% of non-lung recipients (p =  .003). Tissue invasive CMV disease was diagnosed in 3% of the population and CMV syndrome was diagnosed in 33%. Recurrent DNAemia was not associated with 5-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort, undergoing SAP tissue invasive disease was uncommon and CMV DNAemia recurrence did not have an impact on long-term mortality.

Risk factors for high level cytomegalovirus viremia in liver transplant recipients and associated outcomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate epidemiology, risk-factors and outcomes of high-level cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia in liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

Adult patients receiving a liver transplant between 1/1/2017-9/30/2020 were evaluated. Viral loads at UW Health Clinical Laboratories were required to allow for numerical comparison. Primary objective was incidence and outcomes of high-level (HL) CMV viremia (viral-load >100,000 IU/mL). Secondary objective was to elucidate risk factors to allow targeted interventions.

RESULTS

209 patients met inclusion criteria; 175 kept their graft for at least 240 days. Of these 9 patients developed HL CMV, 28 developed low-level (LL CMV, viral-load 250-100,000 IU/mL) and 138 did not develop CMV viremia. When comparing these 3 groups via classic statistical methods time from transplant to viremia was similar (HL 158 ± 77 days, LL 150 ± 76 days). Clinical factors were also similar with the exception of donor seropositivity (HL 87.5%, LL 70.4%, No CMV 49.6%, p = 0.025). HL CMV was significantly associated with graft loss (p < 0.0001) on Kaplan-Meier analysis; graft loss in the LL CMV group did not differ from the No CMV group (p = 0.96) To allow valid assessment of risk factors in the total study population (n = 209) models of time-varying covariates were used and Cox proportional hazards ratios were calculated. In this analysis HL CMV was associated with a significantly increased risk of graft loss (HR 5.6, p = 0.0016). When investigating risk factors associated with HL CMV, donor seropositivity significantly increased risk (HR 8.85, 95% CI 1.13-71.43, p = 0.038). Pre-transplant total bilirubin (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.998-1.07, p = 0.06) trended towards significance. Recipient seronegativity, liver disease, clinical and allocation MELD, transplant surgery duration, age, sex, induction immunosuppression, and maintenance immunosuppression were not significantly associated with development of HL CMV.

CONCLUSION

HL CMV after liver transplant is uncommon but is associated with a significantly increased risk of graft loss that is not present in those patients who develop LL CMV or do not develop CMV viremia. Given these negative graft effects, CMV stewardship interventions targeting recipients of CMV seropositive allografts are warranted. Future larger scale studies evaluating the potential role of other factors in risk stratification are needed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.