Comparison of the Commercial QuantiFERON-CMV and Overlapping Peptide-based ELISPOT Assays for Predicting CMV Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Quantifying Gamma-Interferon from CMV-Specific CD8+ T Cells Defines Protection Against Clinically Significant CMV Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: The Quanti-CMV Score

The cutoff value of the commercial interferon (IFN)-γ release assay (QuantiFERON-CMV) proposed by the manufacturer is assumed to be predictive. We aimed to determine the optimal cutoff value for protection against clinically significant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection within 30 days. We analyzed two different cohorts: adult CMV seropositive kidney transplant (KT) recipients with antithymocyte globulin (ATG) induction from the TIMOVAL study and seropositive lung transplant (LT) patients from the CYTOCOR study. The optimal cutoff value was established using Youden's index. We estimated the predictive capacity of the cutoff value through the AUROC and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the assay at the different cutoff values. We finally evaluated clinical variables that could improve the predictive ability of the assay on a predictive score. Four hundred-four samples from 130 transplant recipients were analyzed. The optimal cutoff value was ≥2.2 IU/mL for both populations, with a positive predictive value of 99% and 99.5% (95% CI, 98-100%) for KT and LT recipients, respectively. The AUROC of the predictive score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-0.97). Using the proposed cutoff value and the Quanti-CMV score may allow the individualization of preventive strategies and serve as an objective tool to support clinical decision-making.

The value and complexity of studying cellular immunity against BK Polyomavirus in kidney transplant recipients

BK Polyomavirus is of particular concern for kidney transplant recipients, due to their immunosuppression. This problem is exacerbated by the high effectiveness of antirejection therapies, which also compromise the organism's ability to fight viral infections. The long-term risk is loss of graft function through BKPyV-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN). The assessment of host immunity and its link to the control of viral infections is a major challenge. In terms of humoral immunity, researchers have highlighted the prognostic value of the pre-transplantation anti-BKPyV immunoglobulin G titer. However, humoral immunity alone does not guarantee viral clearance, and the correlation between the humoral response and the time course of the infection remains weak. In contrast, cellular immunity variables appear to be more closely associated with viral clearance, given that the cellular immune response to the kidney transplant is the main target of immunosuppressive treatments in recipients. However, the assessment of the cellular immune response to BK Polyomavirus is complex, and many details still need to be characterized. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about BKPyV cellular immunity, as well as the difficulties that may be encountered in studying it in kidney transplant recipient. This is an essential area of research for optimizing the management of transplant recipients and minimizing the risks associated with insidious BKPyV disease.

Impact of Baseline and Week 2 and Week 4 Posttransplant CMV Cell-Mediated Immunity on Risk of CMV Infections and Mortality in Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant

Background

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common opportunistic infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). We explored whether a change in CMV cell-mediated immunity during the first month after transplant predicts the risk of development of CMV infection and all-cause mortality.

Methods

This follow-up analysis is based on data from the REACT study, a multicenter prospective observational study of recipients of alloHCT who were CMV-seropositive. Production of interferon γ following ex vivo stimulation with CMV antigens IE1 (immediate early 1) and pp65 (phosphoprotein 65) was assessed by CMV ELISPOT assay at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks after transplant. Clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) was defined as CMV viremia and/or disease necessitating antiviral therapy. We evaluated the impact of CMV CMI changes on the risk of CS-CMVi and post transplant mortality.

Results

The analysis included 226 recipients of alloHCT with CMV cell-mediated immunity data at baseline and 2 and/or 4 weeks after transplant. CS-CMVi occurred in 64 patients (28%). On Cox regression analyses, independent predictors of CS-CMVi included a negative Δ change from baseline to week 2 of pp65 spot counts (hazard ratio, 3.65 [95% CI, 1.65-8.04]; P = .001) to week 4 of IE1 spot counts (hazard ratio, 2.79 [95% CI, 1.46-5.35]; P = .002), anti-thymocyte globulin conditioning regimen, type of transplant, female sex, and corticosteroid use. Kaplan-Meir analysis showed a significant association of a negative IE1 change from baseline to week 4 and increased all-cause mortality after transplant (log rank test = 0.041).

Conclusions

A decrease in CMV-specific T-cell responses during the first month after transplant may predict CS-CMVi and is associated with all-cause mortality in recipients of alloHCT.

Comparison of intracellular cytokine staining versus an ELISA-based assay to assess CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity in high-risk kidney transplant recipients

The best method for monitoring cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI) among high-risk kidney transplant (KT) recipients remains uncertain. We assessed CMV-CMI by intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) by flow cytometry and a commercial interferon (IFN)-γ release assay (QuantiFERON®-CMV [QTF-CMV]) at posttransplant months 3, 4, and 5 in 53 CMV-seropositive KT recipients that had received induction therapy with antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and a 3-month course of valganciclovir prophylaxis. The discriminative capacity (areas under receiver operating characteristics curve [auROCs]) and diagnostic accuracy to predict immune protection against CMV infection from the discontinuation of prophylaxis to month 12 were compared between both methods. There was significant although moderate correlations between CMV-specific IFN-γ-producing CD8⁺ T-cell counts enumerated by ICS and IFN-γ levels by QTF-CMV at months 3 (rho: 0.493; p = 0.005) and 4 (rho: 0.440; p = 0.077). The auROCs for CMV-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cells by ICS were nonsignificantly higher than that of QTF-CMV (0.696 and 0.733 vs. 0.678; p = 0.900 and 0.692, respectively). The optimal cut-off of ≥0.395 CMV-specific CD8⁺ T-cells yielded a sensitivity of 86.4%, specificity of 54.6%, positive predictive value of 79.2% and negative predictive value of 66.7% to predict protection. The corresponding estimates for QTF-CMV (IFN-γ levels ≥0.2 IU/mL) were 78.9%, 37.5%, 75.0%, and 42.9%, respectively. The enumeration of CMV-specific IFN-γ-producing CD8⁺ T-cells at the time of cessation of prophylaxis performed slightly better than the QTF-CMV assay to predict immune protection in seropositive KT recipients previously treated with ATG.

QuantiFERON-Cytomegalovirus Assay for Prediction of Cytomegalovirus Viremia in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Study From High Cytomegalovirus Seroprevalence Country

Background

Early studies showed the utility of pretransplant QuantiFERON-Cytomegalovirus (QF-CMV) assays for CMV-disease prediction post kidney transplant (KT). However, recent data are conflicting.

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled adult patients undergoing KT between July 2017 and May 2019. Patients with antithymocyte globulin therapy or negative pretransplant CMV IgG were excluded. QF-CMV assays were performed on transplantation day and one month thereafter, and CMV viral loads were obtained 1, 3, and 6 months posttransplantation. The primary outcome was CMV viremia within 6 months. The QF-CMV assay–posttransplant CMV viremia association was analyzed.

Results

Fifty-five patients were enrolled (male, 58.2%; mean (SD) age, 46.5 (10.2) years). Fifty-two (94.5%) received CMV-seropositive donor kidneys. Over 6 months, 29 patients developed CMV viremia (52.7%), with 14 (25.5%) having significant viremia requiring antiviral therapy. The CMV-viremia incidence of patients with nonreactive and reactive baseline QF-CMV assays did not differ significantly (55.3% and 47.1%; p = 0.573). Among patients with reactive pretransplant QF-CMV assays, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of CMV viremia for those who were persistently reactive at 1 month after KTs, although there was no statistically significant difference (50% vs 83%; p = 0.132).

Conclusions

Our study could not support the use of single-timepoint pretransplant or 1-month posttransplant QF-CMV assays as a predictor for posttransplant CMV viremia in CMV seropositive KT recipients. Investigation of the association between dynamic QF-CMV-status changes and CMV-viremia incidence are needed.

Diagnostic performance of cytomegalovirus (CMV) immune monitoring with ELISPOT and QuantiFERON-CMV assay in kidney transplantation: A PRISMA-compliant article

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is part of major infection complications following kidney transplantation. However, more rapid and low-complexity assays are needed for CMV infection. Our study is to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of 2 novel tests, CMV-ELISPOT and QuantiFERON-CMV tests, in CMV DNA viremia and CMV infection following renal transplant.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Web of Science. Case-control or cohort study designed to explore the CMV-ELISPOT and/or QuantiFERON-CMV tests in the recipients with CMV infection was considered to be eligible for this study. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curves were calculated.

RESULTS

We selected a total of 12 articles for systematic review and 11 of them were included in meta-analysis. For CMV-pp65 assay, the pooled SEN, SPE, and DOR were 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.78), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 4.46 (95% CI, 3.11-6.39), respectively. For CMV-IE-1 assay, the pooled SEN, SPE, and DOR were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88), 0.46 (95% CI, 0.42-0.51), and 5.07 (95% CI, 3.26-7.89), respectively, whereas the pooled SEN, SPE, and DOR of QuantiFERON-CMV test were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49), 0.38 (95% CI, 0.32-0.44), and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.17-6.00).

CONCLUSIONS

We reported that CMV-ELISPOT tests, including CMV-pp65 and CMV-IE-1, perform well in the diagnosis and prediction of CMV infection in renal transplant recipients, whereas QuantiFERON-CMV test needs further exploration.

Immune Monitoring of Infectious Complications in Transplant Patients: an Important Step towards Improved Clinical Management

Immune reconstitution following organ transplantation is absolutely critical in preventing infectious complications. However, understanding the kinetics of immune reconstitution and its potential impact on the clinical management of transplant patients remains a significant challenge. Over the last decade, various platform technologies have emerged which have provided important insights into the immune reconstitution kinetics in transplant patients. However, many of these technologies are too complicated and cumbersome to implement in a clinical setting. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Chiereghin et al. (J. Clin. Microbiol. 56:e01040-17, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01040-17) report the results of their evaluation of the QuantiFERON-CMV (QFN-CMV) assay to assess human cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD8+ T-cell immunity in heart transplant recipients as a prognostic tool. These studies showed that patients with absence of global immune reactivity in the QFN-CMV assay were at a higher risk of developing CMV after discontinuing antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, failure to reconstitute CMV-specific immunity after resolution of the first episode of viremia was associated with viral relapse. These observations, along with other recent clinical studies utilizing the QFN-CMV assay, demonstrate that systematic monitoring of antiviral immunity can be successfully used as a prognostic tool and also to guide changes to the clinical management of transplant patients.