Cargando…
Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients
BACKGROUND: Management of CMV infection in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients mainly relies on screening of emerging CMV DNA in plasma or whole blood by PCR. However, a first positive CMV PCR may not be reproducible, but constitute a CMV...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7107143/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1966 |
_version_ | 1783512743061487616 |
---|---|
author | Lodding, Isabelle Paula Mocroft, Amanda Bang, Caspar Da Cunha Gustafsson, Finn Iversen, Martin Kirkby, Nikolai Perch, Michael Rasmussen, Allan Sengeløv, Henrik Sørensen, Søren Schwartz Lundgren, Jens |
author_facet | Lodding, Isabelle Paula Mocroft, Amanda Bang, Caspar Da Cunha Gustafsson, Finn Iversen, Martin Kirkby, Nikolai Perch, Michael Rasmussen, Allan Sengeløv, Henrik Sørensen, Søren Schwartz Lundgren, Jens |
author_sort | Lodding, Isabelle Paula |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Management of CMV infection in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients mainly relies on screening of emerging CMV DNA in plasma or whole blood by PCR. However, a first positive CMV PCR may not be reproducible, but constitute a CMV blip (single positive CMV PCR measurements). Such blips are known from monitoring of other viral infections using PCR technology, and may either constitute a false positive read due to assay variability or reflect transient low-level viral replication. We investigated the impact of CMV blips in a cohort of SOT and HSCT recipients. METHODS: SOT and HSCT recipients transplanted between 2010 and 2015, who had a known donor (D)/recipient (R) CMV IgG serostatus (D+/R+, D+/R- or D-/R+), and with ≥3 CMV PCRs fulfilling the CMV PCR triplicate criteria (Figure 1) were included (N = 851). Odds ratio (OR) for factors associated with a triplicate being a blip was estimated by binomial regression adjusted for repeated measurements. Whether blips affected the hazard ratio (HR) for subsequent CMV infection was determined with a Cox model. RESULTS: 851 transplant recipients generated 3883 CMV PCR triplicates (104 blips, 307 infections, 3472 negatives, Figure 1). In the 411 positive triplicates, the OR of a triplicate being a blip decreased with increasing CMV viral load of the second measurement ([vs. = 273 IU/mL]; >273–910 IU/mL: OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1–0.4], >910 IU/mL: OR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03–0.2], P < 0.0001) and was elevated in recipients with intermediary/low-risk CMV IgG serostatus ([vs. those with high] OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.3–3.6] P = 0.003). If the cumulative exposure to viremia in the CMV blips was >910 IU/mL, there was a higher risk of subsequent CMV infection (HR 4.6 [95% CI 1.2–17.2] P = 0.02) (Figure 2). CONCLUSION: CMV blips are frequent while screening transplant recipients with CMV PCR. CMV blips >910 IU/mL is a risk factor for subsequent infection, indicating that CMV blips at least partly reflect transient low-level CMV infection in transplant recipients. These observations suggest that first positive CMV PCR results should be confirmed before initiation of anti-CMV treatment, especially if the viral load of the first positive PCR is <910 IU/mL, or if the patient has intermediary/low-risk serostatus. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7107143 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71071432020-04-02 Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients Lodding, Isabelle Paula Mocroft, Amanda Bang, Caspar Da Cunha Gustafsson, Finn Iversen, Martin Kirkby, Nikolai Perch, Michael Rasmussen, Allan Sengeløv, Henrik Sørensen, Søren Schwartz Lundgren, Jens Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Management of CMV infection in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients mainly relies on screening of emerging CMV DNA in plasma or whole blood by PCR. However, a first positive CMV PCR may not be reproducible, but constitute a CMV blip (single positive CMV PCR measurements). Such blips are known from monitoring of other viral infections using PCR technology, and may either constitute a false positive read due to assay variability or reflect transient low-level viral replication. We investigated the impact of CMV blips in a cohort of SOT and HSCT recipients. METHODS: SOT and HSCT recipients transplanted between 2010 and 2015, who had a known donor (D)/recipient (R) CMV IgG serostatus (D+/R+, D+/R- or D-/R+), and with ≥3 CMV PCRs fulfilling the CMV PCR triplicate criteria (Figure 1) were included (N = 851). Odds ratio (OR) for factors associated with a triplicate being a blip was estimated by binomial regression adjusted for repeated measurements. Whether blips affected the hazard ratio (HR) for subsequent CMV infection was determined with a Cox model. RESULTS: 851 transplant recipients generated 3883 CMV PCR triplicates (104 blips, 307 infections, 3472 negatives, Figure 1). In the 411 positive triplicates, the OR of a triplicate being a blip decreased with increasing CMV viral load of the second measurement ([vs. = 273 IU/mL]; >273–910 IU/mL: OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1–0.4], >910 IU/mL: OR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03–0.2], P < 0.0001) and was elevated in recipients with intermediary/low-risk CMV IgG serostatus ([vs. those with high] OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.3–3.6] P = 0.003). If the cumulative exposure to viremia in the CMV blips was >910 IU/mL, there was a higher risk of subsequent CMV infection (HR 4.6 [95% CI 1.2–17.2] P = 0.02) (Figure 2). CONCLUSION: CMV blips are frequent while screening transplant recipients with CMV PCR. CMV blips >910 IU/mL is a risk factor for subsequent infection, indicating that CMV blips at least partly reflect transient low-level CMV infection in transplant recipients. These observations suggest that first positive CMV PCR results should be confirmed before initiation of anti-CMV treatment, especially if the viral load of the first positive PCR is <910 IU/mL, or if the patient has intermediary/low-risk serostatus. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7107143/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1966 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Lodding, Isabelle Paula Mocroft, Amanda Bang, Caspar Da Cunha Gustafsson, Finn Iversen, Martin Kirkby, Nikolai Perch, Michael Rasmussen, Allan Sengeløv, Henrik Sørensen, Søren Schwartz Lundgren, Jens Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients |
title | Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients |
title_full | Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients |
title_fullStr | Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients |
title_short | Impact of CMV Blips in Transplant Recipients |
title_sort | impact of cmv blips in transplant recipients |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7107143/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1966 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT loddingisabellepaula impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT mocroftamanda impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT bangcaspardacunha impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT gustafssonfinn impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT iversenmartin impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT kirkbynikolai impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT perchmichael impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT rasmussenallan impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT sengeløvhenrik impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT sørensensørenschwartz impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients AT lundgrenjens impactofcmvblipsintransplantrecipients |