Introduction Invasive mold infections contribute to morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The optimal strategy for primary antifungal prophylaxis in this patient population remains uncertain. Methods Medical records of patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Adult patients were included if they received micafungin followed by fluconazole, with the option to escalate to voriconazole, for antifungal prophylaxis. The primary outcome was the incidence rate of proven or probable invasive mold infection. Secondary outcomes were time to invasive mold infection diagnosis, invasive mold infection-related mortality, and risk factors associated with invasive mold infection. Results Two hundred patients were included in the study, a majority of whom underwent matched unrelated (46%) or matched related (33%) donor transplants. The incidence rate of proven or probable invasive mold infection was 18.4 cases per 100 patient-years, with a one-year cumulative incidence of 14%. Median time to proven or probable invasive mold infection was 94 days post-transplant (IQR 26–178), with invasive mold infection-related mortality occurring in 18 (64%) of 28 patients diagnosed with invasive mold infection. Comparison of invasive mold infection-free survival by potential risk factors failed to show any significant differences. Conclusions In this real-life cohort of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients, the incidence of proven or probable invasive mold infection was higher than expected based on previous literature. In the absence of standard guidance on anti-mold prophylaxis in this patient population and given that unique risk factors for invasive mold infection may differ between institutions, it is essential that centers performing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation routinely monitor their antifungal prophylaxis strategies for effectiveness.
Stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients who develop human cytomegalovirus (hCMV) reactivation are at risk of developing graft versus host disease (GVHD). This may stem from immune cross reactivity (Figure 1) towards both pathogen-derived peptides and nearly identical recipient-derived alloreactive peptide minor histocompatibility antigens from SCT donor-recipient pairs (DRP). Whole exome sequencing was performed on 9 SCT DRP, and the resulting nucleotide sequences aligned and compared, identifying all the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) present in the recipient and absent in the donor. Alloreactive peptide libraries were compiled for each DRP (9-mer peptides) and HLA binding affinity calculated for relevant HLA (Front Immunol 2014). A library representing the hCMV proteome was generated from the NCBI Protein database and directly compared to libraries of recipient specific peptide-HLA complexes from the SCT D-R pairs. BLAST Protein sequence alignment was performed to interrogate each pair's peptide-HLA complex library for matches with hCMV peptides, identifying CMV peptides with a 6/6-9/9 amino acid sequence matching to recipient peptides bound to HLA (IC50<500). The resulting matched CMV peptide libraries were completed with flanking amino acids from the original hCMV protein sequences to generate a match library of 9-mer peptides, evaluated for binding to HLA Class I using the netMHCpan algorithm 2.8 (IC50<500). Class I HLA molecules were interrogated for both alloreactive and CMV-derived peptide binding affinity in each patient. 18 HLA molecules bound both types of peptides, of which 7 HLA had more than 5 matches, i.e. human peptide(s) with 6-9 consecutive amino acid sequence identity with CMV peptide(s), where multiple matches were possible. These included: HLA-C*03:03, C*03:04, A*02:01, B*15:03, B*27:05, B*07:02 and B*15:16. Upon peptide library comparison, a median 27 (Range: 3-40) unique CMV peptides/patient matched 22 (Range: 3-30) recipient peptides from 5 matched unrelated DRP (MUD) with corresponding HLA specific binding IC50<500. Matched related DRP (MRD; n=4) comparison yielded a median 7 (Range: 1-21) unique CMV peptides/patient matching 6.5 (Range: 1-19) recipient peptides. This pattern of CMV-matched alloreactive peptides in MUD demonstrated a 3-4 fold higher degree of potential cross reactivity (Median peptides/patient: p=0.048) than MRD. MUD patients with HLA-C*03:03 & C*03:04 specificity (n=4) produced a median 20 (Range: 19-22) unique CMV peptides matching 14.5 (Range: 12-19) potentially cross-reactive recipient peptides. Cross-reactive recipient peptides were capable of matching with up to 7 different CMV peptides (Range: 1-7) and alternatively matching CMV peptides with up to 5 different recipient peptides (Range: 1-5), indicating this phenomenon could promote various strength cross-reactive immune responses (within and outside the IC50<500 range) even from a single matched CMV peptide. Tissue distribution mapping (Genotype-Tissue Expression project, GTEx) of the corresponding DRP peptide source gene expression (human mRNAs) by major tissue group indicated an overlap with known GVHD target organs from CMV-matched alloreactive recipient peptides. CMV is known to infect the vascular endothelium where cross-reactive immune cells, and potentially cross-reactive memory T cell populations, interacting with the target cells of interest would have the greatest opportunity to impact baseline inflammation and potentially trigger graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We propose that from in silico demonstration of sequence identity between DRP polymorphic peptides with CMV proteins that immune cross-reactivity may result in those DRP and cause recipient cells to be targeted by CMV specific T cells with pro-GVH implications. Disclosures Buck: CHRB: Research Funding. Neale:CHRB: Research Funding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.