The use of pre-emptive or prophylactic treatment to control cytomegalovirus (CMV) replication after solid organ transplant (SOT) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether administration of pre-emptive treatment to control viral replication guided by a highly sensitive diagnostic tool is an effective approach for preventing CMV disease, even in high-risk transplant recipients.
Methods
Plasma samples from eight SOT patients were tested using antigenaemia and real-time PCR (RT-PCR) assays. Pre-emptive treatment was administered guided by RT-PCR when viral load values were >1,000 copies/ml.
Results
All patients developed episodes of CMV infection, but none of them developed CMV disease or indirect effects. No patient in this study died or experienced graft rejection. Treatment was needed in 10 replication episodes. At the end of treatment, four had undetectable levels and the other six were cleared 3 weeks later. In 42.6% of tested samples RT-PCR was more sensitive for detecting viral infection.
Conclusions
Pre-emptive monitoring of SOT patients at high risk for CMV infection protected patients from developing CMV disease during the first 6 months after transplant. The use of this sensitive method for guiding pre-emptive treatment diminished viral load early enough that it did not have consequences for patient health.
References
1.
SissonsJ.G., CarmichaelA.J.Clinical aspects and management of cytomegalovirus infection.J Infect2002; 44: 78–83.
2.
RazonableR.R.Cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation: current concepts and challenges.World J Gastroenterol2008; 14: 4849–4860.
3.
EmeryV.C., SabinC.A., CopeA.V., GorD., Hassan-WalkerA.F., GriffithsP.D.Application of viral-load kinetics to identify patients who develop cytomegalovirus disease after transplantation.Lancet2000; 355: 2032–2036.
4.
VillacianJ.S., PayaC.V.Prevention of infections in solid organ transplant recipients.Transpl Infect Dis1999; 1: 50–64.
5.
LjungmanP., GriffithsP., PayaC.Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients.Clin Infect Dis2002; 34: 1094–1097.
6.
FishmanJ.A., RubinR.H.Infection in organ-transplant recipients.N Engl J Med1998; 338: 1741–1751.
7.
Perez-SolaM.J., CastonJ.J., SolanaR., RiveroA., Torre-CisnerosJ.Indirect effects of cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant recipients.Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin2008; 26: 38–47.
8.
FishmanJ.A.Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients.N Engl J Med2007; 357: 2601–2614.
9.
MillerG.G., KaplanB.Prophylaxis versus preemptive protocols for CMV: do they impact graft survival?Am J Transplant2008; 8: 913–914.
10.
KanjS.S., ShararaA.I., ClavienP.A., HamiltonJ.D.Cytomegalovirus infection following liver transplantation: review of the literature.Clin Infect Dis1996; 22: 537–549.
11.
FishmanJ.A., EmeryV., FreemanR.Cytomegalovirus in transplantation – challenging the status quo.Clin Transplant2007; 21: 149–158.
12.
JungC., EngelmannE., BornerK., OffermannG.Preemptive oral ganciclovir therapy versus prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic cytomegalovirus infection after kidney transplantation.Transplant Proc2001; 33: 3621–3623.
13.
KhouryJ.A., StorchG.A., BohlD.L.Prophylactic versus preemptive oral valganciclovir for the management of cytomegalovirus infection in adult renal transplant recipients.Am J Transplant2006; 6: 2134–2143.
14.
ReischigT., JindraP., HesO., SvecovaM., KlabochJ., TreskaV.Valacyclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive valganciclovir therapy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease after renal transplantation.Am J Transplant2008; 8: 69–77.
15.
PalmerS.M., GrinnanD.C., ReamsB.D., SteeleM.P., MessierR.H., DavisR.D.Delay of CMV infection in high-risk CMV mismatch lung transplant recipients due to prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir.Clin Transplant2004; 18: 179–185.
16.
SinghN.Optimal prevention of late-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease and other sequelae of CMV infection in organ transplant recipients.Clin Infect Dis2008; 47: 296–297.
17.
EmeryV.C., GriffithsP.D.Prediction of cytomegalovirus load and resistance patterns after antiviral chemotherapy.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2000; 97: 8039–8044.
18.
EidA.J., ArthursS.K., DezielP.J., WilhelmM.P., RazonableR.R.Emergence of drug-resistant cytomegalovirus in the era of valganciclovir prophylaxis: therapeutic implications and outcomes.Clin Transplant2008; 22: 162–170.
19.
BoivinG., GoyetteN., GilbertC., CovingtonE.Analysis of cytomegalovirus DNA polymerase (UL54) mutations in solid organ transplant patients receiving valganciclovir or ganciclovir prophylaxis.J Med Virol2005; 77: 425–429.
20.
LilleriD., BaldantiF., GattiM.Clinically-based determination of safe DNAemia cutoff levels for preemptive therapy or human cytomegalovirus infections in solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.J Med Virol2004; 73: 412–418.
21.
Martin-DavilaP., FortunJ., GutierrezC.Analysis of quantitative PCR assay for CMV infection in liver transplant recipients: an intent to find the cut-off value.J Clin Virol2005; 33: 138–144.
22.
SinghN.Preemptive therapy versus universal prophylaxis with ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients.Clin Infect Dis2001; 32: 742–751.
23.
BoeckhM., BoivinG.Quantitation of cytomegalovirus: methodologic aspects and clinical applications.Clin Microbiol Rev1998; 11: 533–554.
24.
van der BijW., SchirmJ., TorensmaR., van SonW.J., TegzessA.M., TheT.H.Comparison between viremia and antigenemia for detection of cytomegalovirus in blood.J Clin Microbiol1988; 26: 2531–2535.
25.
SchirmJ., TimmerijeW., van der BijW.Rapid detection of infectious cytomegalovirus in blood with the aid of monoclonal antibodies.J Med Virol1987; 23: 31–40.
26.
LandryM.L., FergusonD., CohenS., HuberK., WetherillP.Effect of delayed specimen processing on cytomegalovirus antigenemia test results.J Clin Microbiol1995; 33: 257–259.
27.
DebackC., FilletA.M., DhedinN.Monitoring of human cytomegalovirus infection in immunosuppressed patients using real-time PCR on whole blood.J Clin Virol2007; 40: 173–179.
28.
MengelleC., PasquierC., RostaingL.Quantitation of human cytomegalovirus in recipients of solid organ transplants by real-time quantitative PCR and pp65 antigenemia.J Med Virol2003; 69: 225–231.
29.
KimD.J., KimS.J., ParkJ.Real-time PCR assay compared with antigenemia assay for detecting cytomegalovirus infection in kidney transplant recipients.Transplant Proc2007; 39: 1458–1460.
30.
SinghN.Antiviral drugs for cytomegalovirus in transplant recipients: advantages of preemptive therapy.Rev Med Virol2006; 16: 281–287.
31.
SnydmanD.R.The case for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in solid organ transplantation.Rev Med Virol2006; 16: 289–295.
32.
AbbateI., FinnstromN., ZanirattiS.Evaluation of an automated extraction system in combination with Affigene CMV Trender for CMV DNA quantitative determination: comparison with nested PCR and pp65 antigen test.J Virol Methods2008; 151: 61–65.
33.
Bernabeu-WittelM., Pachon-IbanezJ., CisnerosJ.M.Quantitative pp65 antigenemia in the diagnosis of cytomegalovirus disease: prospective assessment in a cohort of solid organ transplant recipients.J Infect2005; 51: 188–194.
34.
CarianiE., PollaraC.P., VallonciniB., PerandinF., BonfantiC., MancaN.Relationship between pp65 antigenemia levels and real-time quantitative DNA PCR for human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) management in immunocompromised patients.BMC Infect Dis2007; 7: 138.
35.
PescovitzM.D.Benefits of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in solid organ transplantation.Transplantation2006; 82 Suppl 2: S4–S8.
