Impact of an Ultrasensitive Cytomegalovirus Quantitative Nucleic Acid Test on Cytomegalovirus Detection and Therapy in Renal Transplant Recipients

Overview

Journal Transpl Infect Dis

Specialties General Surgery
Infectious Diseases

Date 2023 Dec 30

PMID 38158932

Authors

Vivek B Beechar

Stephanie M Pouch

Varun K Phadke

Geeta Karadkhele

Christian P Larsen

Michael H Woodworth

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has broad implications for morbidity and mortality in renal transplant recipients (RTR). Routine surveillance for CMV replication with PCR-based quantitative nucleic acid testing (qNAT) assays is standard practice in most transplant centers, but the impact of assay sensitivity on antiviral decision-making and virologic outcomes has not been studied. We investigated the effects of an ultrasensitive CMV qNAT assay on multiple clinical outcomes, including time to detection and duration of CMV DNAemia.

Methods: We conducted a single-center cohort study contrasting RTRs monitored with a qNAT with a higher lower limit of quantification (LLOQ >300 IU/mL) with those monitored with a more sensitive qNAT (LLOQ >35 IU/mL). Patients were stratified by donor (D)/recipient (R) CMV serostatus (D+/R-: high risk; any R+: moderate risk). CMV viral load monitoring was performed monthly post transplantation, with the primary outcomes being time to CMV DNAemia and its duration.

Results: Total 1382 patients were analyzed from 2014 to 2016 and 2019 to 2021. Moderate-risk RTRs monitored with the more sensitive assay experienced a greater hazard for the development of a first episode of CMV DNAemia (aHR: 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55-2.46) and an average of 24 (95% CI: 16.40-31.98) additional days of DNAemia. There was no difference in CMV end-organ disease or 1-year all-cause mortality between moderate-risk RTRs.

Conclusions: The more sensitive assay was associated with earlier detection and extended durations of CMV DNAemia in moderate-risk RTRs, without altering clinical outcomes. These findings inform optimal use of these assays and antiviral stewardship in RTRs.

Key Summary: The use of ultrasensitive CMV qNAT assays in moderate-risk CMV renal transplant recipients is associated with earlier detection and longer durations of CMV DNAemia without impacting CMV end-organ disease or 1-year mortality.

Citing Articles

Evaluating Real-World Experience With Maribavir for Treatment of Refractory/Resistant Cytomegalovirus in Renal Transplant Recipients.

Beechar V, Phadke V, Pouch S, Mehta A, Karadkhele G, Larsen C Clin Transplant. 2024; 38(10):e15480.

PMID: 39427300 PMC: 11889418. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15480.

References

Humar A, Gregson D, Caliendo A, McGeer A, Malkan G, Krajden M . Clinical utility of quantitative cytomegalovirus viral load determination for predicting cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation. 1999; 68(9):1305-11. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-199911150-00015. View

Jorgenson M, Descourouez J, Kleiboeker H, Goldrosen K, Schulz L, Rice J . Cytomegalovirus antiviral stewardship in solid organ transplant recipients: A new gold standard. Transpl Infect Dis. 2022; 24(5):e13864. DOI: 10.1111/tid.13864. View

Jorgenson M, Descourouez J, Schulz L, Saddler C, Smith J . CMV antiviral stewardship: navigating obstacles to facilitate target attainment. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2022; 28(1):8-14. DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000001032. View

Mathur M, Ding P, Riddell C, VanderWeele T . Web Site and R Package for Computing E-values. Epidemiology. 2018; 29(5):e45-e47. PMC: 6066405. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000864. View

Singh N, Winston D, Razonable R, Lyon G, Silveira F, Wagener M . Effect of Preemptive Therapy vs Antiviral Prophylaxis on Cytomegalovirus Disease in Seronegative Liver Transplant Recipients With Seropositive Donors: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020; 323(14):1378-1387. PMC: 7157180. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.3138. View

George M, Snydman D, Werner B, Griffith J, Falagas M, Dougherty N . The independent role of cytomegalovirus as a risk factor for invasive fungal disease in orthotopic liver transplant recipients. Boston Center for Liver Transplantation CMVIG-Study Group. Cytogam, MedImmune, Inc. Gaithersburg, Maryland. Am J Med. 1997; 103(2):106-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(97)80021-6. View

Preiksaitis J, Hayden R, Tong Y, Pang X, Fryer J, Heath A . Are We There Yet? Impact of the First International Standard for Cytomegalovirus DNA on the Harmonization of Results Reported on Plasma Samples. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 63(5):583-9. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw370. View

Razonable R, Asberg A, Rollag H, Duncan J, Boisvert D, Yao J . Virologic suppression measured by a cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA test calibrated to the World Health Organization international standard is predictive of CMV disease resolution in transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2013; 56(11):1546-53. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit096. View

Dioverti M, Lahr B, Germer J, Yao J, Gartner M, Razonable R . Comparison of Standardized Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Viral Load Thresholds in Whole Blood and Plasma of Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients with CMV Infection and Disease. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017; 4(3):ofx143. PMC: 5570102. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofx143. View

10.

VanderWeele T, Ding P . Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167(4):268-274. DOI: 10.7326/M16-2607. View

11.

Snydman D . The case for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in solid organ transplantation. Rev Med Virol. 2006; 16(5):289-95. DOI: 10.1002/rmv.514. View

12.

Razonable R, Humar A . Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients-Guidelines of the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Clin Transplant. 2019; 33(9):e13512. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13512. View

13.

Meesing A, Razonable R . New Developments in the Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection After Transplantation. Drugs. 2018; 78(11):1085-1103. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-018-0943-1. View

14.

Fryer J, Heath A, Minor P . A collaborative study to establish the 1st WHO International Standard for human cytomegalovirus for nucleic acid amplification technology. Biologicals. 2016; 44(4):242-251. DOI: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2016.04.005. View

15.

Natori Y, Alghamdi A, Tazari M, Miller V, Husain S, Komatsu T . Use of Viral Load as a Surrogate Marker in Clinical Studies of Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2017; 66(4):617-631. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix793. View

16.

Walker R, Marshall W, Strickler J, Wiesner R, Velosa J, Habermann T . Pretransplantation assessment of the risk of lymphoproliferative disorder. Clin Infect Dis. 1995; 20(5):1346-53. DOI: 10.1093/clinids/20.5.1346. View

17.

Munoz-Price L, Slifkin M, Ruthazer R, Poutsiaka D, Hadley S, Freeman R . The clinical impact of ganciclovir prophylaxis on the occurrence of bacteremia in orthotopic liver transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 39(9):1293-9. DOI: 10.1086/425002. View

18.

Natori Y, Alghamdi A, Husain S, Rotstein C, Selzner N, Tikkanen J . Clinical predictors of progression and clearance of low-level CMV DNAemia in solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2019; 22(1):e13207. DOI: 10.1111/tid.13207. View