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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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