Efficacy and safety of universal valganciclovir prophylaxis combined with a tacrolimus/mycophenolate-based regimen in kidney transplantation

Manuel, Oriol; Venetz, Jean-Pierre; Fellay, Jacques; Wasserfallen, Jean‐Blaise; Sturzenegger, N.; Fontana, Massimiliano; Matter, Maurice; Meylan, Pascal; Pascual, Manuel

doi:10.4414/smw.2007.11961

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 Although these strategies have reduced the incidence of CMV infection post-LTx, widespread use of antivirals is associated with side effects including neutropenia, bone marrow toxicity, antiviral resistance, and late-onset CMV disease. [8][9][10] Therefore, there is an increasing interest to use CMV immune monitoring tests to guide and provide an individualized approach to antiviral prophylaxis.…”

Section: Lung Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytomegalovirus Immunity Assays Predict Viremia but not Replication Within the Lung Allograft

Gardiner

Stankovic

et al. 2023

Transplantation Direct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection causes significant morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients. Current guidelines use pretransplant donor and recipient CMV serostatus to predict the risk of subsequent CMV replication and length of antiviral prophylaxis. Immunological monitoring may better inform the risk of CMV infection in patients, thereby allowing for improved tailoring of antiviral prophylaxis. In this study, we compared 2 commercially available assays, the QuantiFERON-CMV (QFN-CMV) and T-Track-CMV (enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay), to predict the risk of CMV disease in lung transplant recipients. Methods: We performed CMV immunity assays on 32 lung transplant recipients at risk of CMV disease as defined by serostatus (CMV-seropositive recipients, n = 26; or CMV-seronegative lung transplant recipient receiving a CMV-seropositive donor organ, n = 6). QFN-CMV and T-Track were performed on peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and episodes of CMV replication in both serum and bronchoalveolar lavage were found to be correlated to the CMV immune assays. The predictive ability of the assays was determined using Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: There was a degree of concordance between tests, with 44% of recipients positive for both tests and 28% negative for both tests; however, test results were discordant in 28% of cases. A negative result in either the QFN-CMV (P < 0.01) or T-Track (P < 0.05) assays was obtained in a significantly higher number of recipients who experienced CMV replication in the blood. Using these assays together gave higher predictability of CMV replication, with only 1 recipient experiencing CMV replication in the blood who obtained a positive test result for both assays. Neither assay was able to predict recipients who experienced CMV replication in the lung allograft. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that CMV immunity assays can predict viremia; however, the lack of association with allograft infection suggests that CMV-specific T-cell immunity in the circulation is not associated with the control of CMV replication within the transplanted lung allograft.

show abstract