Defining the risks for cytomegalovirus infection and disease after solid organ transplantation

CMV Infection Risk Factors and Viral Dynamics After Valganciclovir Prophylaxis: 10 Years of Experience in Lung Transplant Recipients

(1) The prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in lung transplant recipients (LTx) is based on the administration of VGC for a period of 6-12 months, but there is little information on the premature discontinuation of the drug. Our objective was to evaluate the reasons for early cessation of VGC and the dynamics of CMV replication after discontinuation. (2) We carried out a retrospective study of LTx on VGC prophylaxis according to guidelines, with an outpatient follow-up period of >90 days. The detection of any level of CMV-DNA in the plasma (Cobas, Roche Diagnostics®) during a period of 18 months after the discontinuation of VGC was considered positive. (3) We included 312 patients (64% male, mean age 53.50 ± 12.27; 71% D+R+, 15% D-R+, and 14% D+R-) in our study. The prescribed prophylaxis was completed by 179 patients (57.05%). The mean duration of prophylaxis was 7.17 ± 1.08 months. The recorded reasons for VGC discontinuation in 133 patients (43%) were myelotoxicity (n = 55), impaired renal function (n = 32), and gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 11). The reason for discontinuation was not recorded for 29 patients. CMV-DNA was detected in 79% (n = 246) of cases, and D+R+ and D+R- recipients showed a high risk of detection (p < 0.001). The median times to onset of CMV-DNA detection were 35 days in D+R-, 73 days in D+R+, and 96 days in D-R+ (p < 0.001). (4) Adverse effects of VGC are frequent in LTx. CMV-DNA detection is very common after the discontinuation of VGC and is related to the CMV donor and recipient serostatus.

Management of cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the primary causes of morbidity and mortality following liver transplantation (LT). Based on current worldwide guidelines, the most effective strategies for avoiding post-transplant CMV infection are antiviral prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment. CMV- IgG serology is the established technique for pretransplant screening of both donors and recipients. The clinical presentation of CMV infection and disease exhibits variability, prompting clinicians to consistently consider this possibility, particularly within the first year post-transplantation or subsequent to heightened immunosuppression. At annual symposia to discuss CMV prevention and how treatment outcomes can be improved, evidence on the incorporation of immune functional tests into clinical practice is presented, and the results of studies with new antiviral treatments are evaluated. Although there are ongoing studies on the use of letermovir and maribavir in solid organ transplantation, a consensus reflected in the guidelines has not been formed. Determining the most appropriate strategy at the individual level appears to be the key to enhancing outcomes. Although prevention strategies reduce the risk of CMV disease, the disease can still occur in up to 50% of high-risk patients. A balance between the risk of infection and disease development and the use of immunosuppressants must be considered when talking about the proper management of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. The objective of this study was to establish a comprehensive framework for the management of CMV in patients who have had LT.

Cytomegalovirus Disease After Liver Transplant-A Description of a Treatment-Resistant Case: A Case Report and Literature Review

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication in solid organ transplant recipients. In patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment, CMV may lead to life-threatening organ complications or graft loss. We describe a case of 31-year-old CMV-seronegative patient who underwent liver transplant from a CMV-seropositive donor with an early acute resistant rejection of the transplanted organ followed by primary CMV infection, despite prophylaxis, and its severe organ complications. Routine treatment of acute allograft rejection through increasing the base immunosuppression and then administering methylprednisolone infusions did not yield significant therapeutic effect. This resulted in anti-thymocyte globulin and ultimately proteasome inhibitor introduction. The cholestasis remitted and liver parameters improved. But 4 weeks later the patient was admitted again due to incorrect liver function tests. Blood tests revealed high CMV viral load, and primary CMV infection was diagnosed. On diagnosis the patient was treated with ganciclovir (GCV) intravenously. As GCV resistance was suspected based on clinical premises, foscarnet (FOS) and leflunomide (LFM) were implemented with concomitant cautious immunosuppression reduction due to the history of recent graft rejection. Despite aggressive treatment introduction, viral clearance was not obtained. Ultimately the patient died due to respiratory distress resulting from lung fibrosis, most probably owing to CMV diseases with Pneumocystis jiroveci coinfection. The presented case proves the importance of strictly following the rules of prophylaxis, especially in patients with a high risk factor of CMV infection development. A quick diagnosis, implementation of appropriate treatment, and fast reaction to the lack of satisfying therapeutic effect can be the key to a successful treatment.

The effect of different immunoprophylaxis regimens on post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The effects of different immunoprophylaxis regimens on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in liver transplant recipients (LTRs) have not been compared.

METHODS

In a cohort, we studied 343 CMV-seropositive recipient (R+) and 83 seronegative donor/recipient (D-/R-) consecutive LTRs from 2004 to 2007. Immunoprophylaxis regimens included steroid-only, steroids plus rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG), and steroids plus basiliximab. Logistic regression analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression model, and log-rank test were performed for multivariate analysis as appropriate.

RESULTS

In total, 164 (39%), 69 (16%), and 193 (45%) patients received steroid-only, basiliximab, and rATG immunoprophylaxis, respectively. CMV infection rates were 15.7% (54/343) in CMV R+ LTRs and 2.4% (2/83) in CMV R- LTRs. Among CMV R+ LTRs who received rATG, the use of at least 6 weeks of CMV prophylaxis reduced the rate of CMV infection from 24.4% (19/78) to 11.7% (9/77). In multivariate analysis, CMV R+ vs D-/R- (odds ratio [OR]=13.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-97.2), rATG >3 mg/kg vs steroid-only induction (OR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.3), and CMV prophylaxis <6 weeks vs ≥6 weeks (OR=2.7, 95% CI: 1.2-6.4) were independently associated with CMV infection. Subgroup analysis in CMV D-/R+ group who received rATG showed that ≥6 weeks of CMV prophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of CMV infection (OR=1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.9; P=.03).

CONCLUSION

The use of rATG immunoprophylaxis increases the risk of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive LTRs, specifically in the CMV D-/R+ group. Prophylaxis with valganciclovir in this group for at least 6 weeks decreases the risk of CMV infection.

Cytomegalovirus Infection After Intestinal/Multivisceral Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience With 210 Cases

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most prevalent infectious complication after solid organ transplantation, and recipients of isolated intestinal transplantation (IIT)/multivisceral transplantation (MVT) are among those at the highest risk. Limited clinical data exist regarding CMV infection after IIT/MVT. The aim of this study is to analyze risk factors for posttransplant CMV infection and to assess the efficacy and validity of our prophylaxis and treatment regimens in intestinal transplantation.

METHODS

Medical records of 210 IIT/MVT patients were retrospectively reviewed. Posttransplant CMV prophylaxis regimen consisted of ganciclovir followed by 1 year of valganciclovir. The addition of CMV immunoglobulin (CMVIG) was decided according to donor/recipient CMV serostatus (D/R). All results of CMV PCR and/or pp65 antigenemia, and pathological reports were reviewed. Time to the incidence of CMV infection (viremia and/or tissue invasive disease) and risk factors for CMV infection were investigated.

RESULTS

CMV infection was observed in 34 of 210 (16%) with a median onset of 347 days. Rejection was significantly associated with CMV infection (P = 0.01, odds ratio = 2.61). In the high-risk serostatus group (D+/R-), prophylactic CMVIG and induction with high-dose rabbit antithymocyte globulin (>10 mg/kg) were associated with a lower CMV infection rate on univariate analysis. The CMVIG remained to be an independent factor on multivariate analysis (P = 0.04, hazard ratio = 0.93/dose). Mortality associated with CMV infection occurred in 4, and CMV infection adversely affected patient survival (P = 0.001, hazard ratio = 2.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with CMVIG and appropriate induction with rabbit antithymocyte globulin may be important to reduce CMV infection in high-risk serostatus group (D+/R-).

Cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients: Updates on clinical management

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication after liver transplantation, and it is associated with multiple direct and indirect effects. Management of CMV infection and disease has evolved over the years, and clinical guidelines have been recently updated. Universal antiviral prophylaxis and a pre-emptive treatment strategy are options for prevention. A currently-recruiting randomized clinical trial is comparing the efficacy and safety of the two prevention strategies in the highest risk D+R- liver recipients. Drug-resistant CMV infection remains uncommon but is now increasing in incidence. This highlights the currently limited therapeutic options, and the need for novel drug discoveries. Immunotherapy and antiviral drugs with novel mechanisms of action are being investigated, including letermovir (AIC246) and brincidofovir (CMX001). This article reviews the current state of CMV management after liver transplantation, including the updated practice guidelines, and summarizes the data on investigational drugs and vaccines in clinical development.

Cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus infection remains a serious threat to solid transplant recipients. Despite advances in this field, there are still difficulties in the diagnosis of the disease and there are questions about the best and most cost-effective strategy to prevent infection and its direct and indirect consequences in the short and long term. All these points are discussed and updated in this chapter.

[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.

[Treatment of cytomegalovirus disease]

For years, intravenous ganciclovir has been the recommended treatment for cytomegalovirus (CMV) in transplant recipients. Recently, oral valganciclovir has been shown to induce a response to CMV similar to that produced by intravenous ganciclovir and could consequently be an alternative to ganciclovir in patients with non-severe disease. Sequential therapy with ganciclovir followed by valganciclovir, after the onset of clinical improvement, reduces costs and avoids prolonged hospital stays, thus benefitting patients. Optimal treatment duration is guided by clinical response and virological monitoring (polymerase chain reaction or antigenemia) and is maintained until the results are negative. Some groups use secondary prophylaxis in patients with risk factors for recurrence of CMV disease. Reducing the intensity of immunosuppression or complementing antiviral therapy with immunoglobulins can be considered in patients with severe disease or immunodepression. There are no conclusive data on the most effective treatment in ganciclovir-resistant CMV. Therapeutic decisions should be based on genotypic resistance studies, the patient's immune status and disease severity. Treatment consists of foscarnet alone or in combination with ganciclovir in the most severe forms and in high-resistance mutations, or in increasing the dose of ganciclovir in clinical forms or in mild resistance. There are no conclusive data on alternative antiviral drugs or complementary therapy with mTOR inhibitors. Several CMV vaccines are under development and the preclinical results are encouraging.

Dynamic expression of Qa-2 during acute graft rejection

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-G exhibits immunotolerogenicity and is related to allograft acceptance. Qa-2 is the murine homolog of HLA-G; it has structure and functions similar to those of HLA-G. We investigated the dynamic expression of Qa-2 in skin allografts by immunohistochemistry and on peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets by flow cytometry during the entire process of acute graft rejection (AGR) with a murine skin transplantation model to determine its relationship with the pathological changes of allografts and the influence of immunosuppressive therapy. In grafts without immunosuppressive treatment, Qa-2 did not exhibit obvious changes in syngeneic and allogeneic recipients. In contrast, with immunosuppressant-treated grafts, positive expression of Qa-2 was observed. It remained at high levels in the immunosuppressant-treated syngeneic group; however, it became weakly positive and even negative in infiltrating inflammatory cells as AGR advanced, but it remained strongly positive in other skin tissues throughout the AGR process. Qa-2 expression on CD4(+) and CD8(+) peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets remained stable at a normal level in the non-immunosuppressant-treated syngeneic group. Immunosuppressive treatment can also significantly upregulate Qa-2. In the allogeneic groups, decreased expression was observed when AGR was at histological grades 1 to 2 (well before gross rejection was observed). Qa-2 was upregulated again after the graft was rejected completely. The results suggest that the increase in Qa-2 may be attributed to the use of immunosuppressive treatments. Moreover, Qa-2 expression decreased significantly with AGR progression, suggesting that it may be a potential marker for predicting AGR, especially in the presence of immunosuppressive agents.