Late-onset cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients despite antiviral prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: The incidence and impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease that occurs despite CMV prophylaxis among liver transplant recipients have been incompletely defined. METHODS: The incidence and risk factors for CMV disease during the first posttransplant year in a cohort of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir were retrospectively analyzed using Cox proportional-hazard regression models. RESULTS: CMV disease developed in 19 of 259 recipients (7% [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.11]) at a median of 4.5 months posttransplant, included syndrome (63%) or tissue-invasive disease (37%), and was independently associated with an increased risk of mortality during the first posttransplant year (hazard ratio 14 [95% confidence interval 3.8-54], P=0.0007). The incidence was higher (10/38 [26%] vs. 8/180 [4.5%], P<0.0001) in seronegative recipients (R-) of an organ from a seropositive donor (D+) compared with seropositive (R+) patients, respectively. D+R- status was the only variable significantly associated with CMV disease in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Late CMV disease develops in a substantial proportion of D+R- recipients after prophylaxis is discontinued, is not accurately predicted by patient factors, and is associated with increased mortality. New strategies to identify D+R- patients at risk and to reduce the incidence and impact of late CMV disease in this group are warranted.     

Pre-transplant risk factors predicting post-transplant cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection causes significant morbidity and mortality among transplant recipients. Although it is still not clear if a preemptive strategy is superior to a prophylactic strategy, many transplant programs elect for preemptive treatment for post-transplant CMV infection. In order to improve the preemptive strategy, we analyzed a series of liver recipients by means of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Ninety-one liver transplant recipients were monitored by real-time PCR for CMV, and the results were analyzed in terms of preoperative conditions. Multivariate analysis revealed fulminant hepatic failure as an underlying disease (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 1.2-39.2), while an ABO-incompatible graft (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.3-19.1), and a serological combination of the donor (D) being positive with the recipient (R) being negative for CMV (D+/R-) (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-26.0) were independently associated with the development of significant CMV infection. Patients with risk factors had higher peak CMV DNA concentrations than those without, and developed CMV infections faster (P = 0.0002). Screening of recipients according to risk factors and PCR monitoring may result in an optimization of the preemptive strategy.     

移植受者人巨细胞病毒感染研究进展

人巨细胞病毒（HCMV）是移植术后受者最易感染的机会性病毒之一。随着新型免疫抑制剂和抗病毒药物的研发,以及预防治疗和预先治疗的广泛应用,移植受者HCMV感染情况已经发生了显著变化。但HCMV感染仍然是引起移植受者近期和远期病变和死亡的重要因素。本文对HCMV感染基础研究、诊断技术和治疗的最新进展进行了综述。     

Monitoring of human cytomegalovirus infections in heart transplant recipients by pp65 antigenemia

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic techniques offer the opportunity of early diagnosis of human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in immunocompromized patients at risk of developing CMV disease and syndrome. The use of CMV pp65 antigenemia as a predictor of CMV syndrome and disease in heart transplant recipient after induction therapy was studied retrospectively. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen consecutive heart transplant recipients treated with induction therapy who survived more then 14 d were monitored for CMV infection. Ninety-four recipients were seropositive for CMV. Twenty-five recipients were seronegative for CMV and received grafts from seropositive donors. Pre-emptive therapy was used in seropositive patients when CMV pp65 antigenemia was greater than 50 antigen-positive cells per 2 x 10(5) peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL); prophylactic therapy was done only in seronegative recipient matched with seropositive donor. RESULTS: High-level CMV pp65 antigenemia (50 antigen-positive cells 2 x 10(5) PBL) occurred in 34% (41 of 119) of patients at a median of 44 d following transplantation. In seropositive recipients, 16% (15 of 94) of patients developed CMV invasive disease or syndrome, and in seronegative recipients 20% (5 of 25) of patients developed CMV disease or syndrome. Sixty-six per cent (62 of 94) of CMV seropositive patients were identified as not requiring pre-emptive therapy. In seropositive and seronegative recipients, the sensibility and negative predictive value of the cut-off level of 50 antigen positive cell for CMV disease and syndrome was 100%. The specificity was 79% and positive predictive value was 49%. CONCLUSION: Because of the excellent sensibility and negative predictive value of the cut-off level of 50 antigen positive cell per 2 x 10(5) PBL, application of pre-emptive therapy guided by high level of CMV pp65 antigenemia in the context of induction therapy allow to omit antiviral therapy in many at risk patients. In the context of pre-emptive and prophylactic therapy, the cut-off level of 50 antigen positive cell do not allow to predict with accuracy the development of CMV disease or syndrome.     

Prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an opportunistic infection frequently found after solid organ transplantation, and it contributes significantly to mortality and morbidity. CMV-seronegative recipients of grafts from CMV-seropositive donors have the highest risk of CMV disease. The most appropriate strategy for preventing CMV disease in this population is a matter of active debate. In this study, we compared prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV disease in donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D(+) /R(-) ) liver recipients. To this end, we selected a retrospective cohort of liver recipients (1992-2009) for analysis. D(+) /R(-) patients were identified from the liver transplant program database. Eighty of 878 consecutive liver recipients (9%) were D(+) /R(-) . Six of these patients died within 30 days of transplantation and were excluded. Thirty-five of the remaining D(+) /R(-) patients (47%) received prophylaxis, and 39 patients (53%) followed a preemptive strategy based on CMV antigenemia surveillance. Fifty-four (73%) were men, the median age was 49 years (range = 15-68 years), and the mean follow-up was 68 months (range = 8-214 months). The baseline characteristics and the initial immunosuppressive regimens were similar for the 2 groups. Ganciclovir or valganciclovir was the antiviral drug used initially in both strategy groups. CMV disease occurred more frequently among D(+) /R(-) liver recipients receiving preemptive therapy (33.3% versus 8.6% for the prophylaxis group, P = 0.01), whereas late-onset CMV disease was found only in patients receiving prophylaxis (5.7% versus 0% for the preemptive therapy group, P = 0.22). No significant differences in acute allograft rejection, other opportunistic infections, or case fatality rates were observed. According to our data, prophylaxis was more effective than preemptive therapy in preventing CMV disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl, 2012. ? 2012 AASLD.     

Clinical utility of quantitative cytomegalovirus viral load determination for predicting cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: The early detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) after liver transplantation may form the basis of a preemptive strategy for prevention of active CMV disease. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed the clinical use of weekly quantitative polymerase chain reaction-(PCR) based plasma viral load determinations and the antigenemia assay for predicting the development of active CMV disease in 97 consecutive liver transplant recipients. RESULTS: CMV disease occurred in 21/97 patients. Using a positive cut-off of >400 copies/ml plasma, PCR had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 47.4%, positive predictive value 34.4% and negative predictive value 100% for prediction of CMV disease. Respective values for a positive antigenemia (>0 positive cells/slide) were 95.2, 55.3, 37.0, and 97.7%. Different cut-off points for a positive test were analyzed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The optimal cut-off for viral load was in the range of 2000-5000 copies/ml (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 86.8%, PPV 64.3%, NPV 95.7% for >5000 copies/ml). The optimal cut-off for antigenemia was in the range of four to six positive cells/slide. Mean peak viral load in symptomatic patients was 73,715 copies per/ml versus 3615 copies/ml in patients with asymptomatic CMV reactivation (P<0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors for CMV disease (CMV serostatus, acute rejection, and induction immunosuppression), peak viral load and peak antigenemia emerged as the only significant independent predictors of CMV disease (for PCR, odds ratio=1.40/1000 copy/ml increase in viral load, P=0.0001; for antigenemia odds ratio=1.17/1 positive cell/slide). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma viral load by quantitative PCR is useful for predicting CMV disease and could be used in a preemptive strategy.     

Co-infection of polyomavirus-BK and cytomegalovirus in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Polyomavirus-BK (BK) is a significant cause of allograft dysfunction in renal transplant recipients. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and BK infection are thought to be possible risk factors for one another, but no supporting data are yet available. METHODS: The authors monitored BK and CMV infection by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 69 renal transplant recipients with serum creatinine elevation to determine the prevalence of co-infection. In addition, 150 adult renal transplant recipients were also retrospectively analyzed for both infections. RESULTS: Of 69 recipients, 12 were plasma BK-PCR-positive. Eight of the 12 showed high BK levels (>10 copies) and BK nephropathy. Six of the 12 were also CMV-PCR-positive compared with only 3 of 57 plasma BK-negative patients (50% vs. 5.3%, P=0.001). Comparatively, the incidence of Epstein-Barr virus infection was similar in both groups (1 of 12 [8.3%] vs. 2 of 57 [3.5%], P =not significant). In addition, retrospective analysis of CMV-PCR-positivity in 150 adult renal transplant recipients showed similar results (5 of 6 in BK-PCR-positive [83%] vs. 8 of 144 in BK-PCR-negative [5.6%], P=0.00001). More plasma BK-PCR-positive patients had concomitant CMV infection than CMV-PCR-positive patients with BK infection (5 of 6 [83%] vs. 4 of 13 [31%], P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, high plasma BK-positivity (>10) is significantly associated with BK nephropathy. Plasma BK-positivity is highly associated with co-infection of CMV, suggesting possible risk factors for one another. Therefore, detection of either infection strongly suggests the need to monitor for the other. This strategy may lead to the prevention of virus-induced complications by preemptive antiviral therapy in renal allografts.     

Emergence of ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus in lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Since ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease was initially described in a patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in 1986, the incidence of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease appears to be increasing in immunocompromised patients. More recently, there have been sporadic reports of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease in solid organ transplantation. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the incidence of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease in all lung transplant recipients transplanted between 6/93 and 6/01 at Loyola University Medical Center. All patients underwent routine CMV blood culture, shell vial assay as well as phenotypic and genotypic anti-viral susceptibility testing according to a pre-determined schedule. The number of CMV episodes, intravenous ganciclovir use, acute and chronic rejection and survival data were documented for all patients. RESULTS: Twelve of 212 (6%) transplant recipients developed ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease. Ganciclovir resistance was associated with a higher number of CMV episodes (3.4 +/- 2.3 episodes/patient vs 1.7 +/- 0.7 episodes/patient [p < 0.05]) and an increased exposure to cumulative intravenous ganciclovir in the primary CMV-mismatched (D(+)R(-)) population (22 +/- 10 vs 13 +/- 7 days [p < 0.05]) compared with patients who did not develop ganciclovir resistance. In addition, the use of daclizumab therapy was associated with a 7-fold greater likelihood of developing ganciclovir resistance (p < 0.0001). The presence of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease in our population was associated with a decreased survival that could be attributed to CMV disease itself (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: By screening all lung transplant recipients with CMV disease for ganciclovir resistance, we were able to detect a higher incidence of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease (6%) than previously seen in solid organ transplantation. High-risk patients (D(+)R(-) CMV serostatus) who receive anti-lymphocytic therapy should be monitored aggressively and treated to prevent the development of ganciclovir resistance and avert a negative outcome.     

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of prophylactic versus preemptive cytomegalovirus strategy in liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following solid organ transplantation (SOT). Two strategies, prophylactic, and preemptive have emerged for the prevention of CMV infection and disease after SOT. This retrospective chart review of two liver transplant cohorts: prophylactic and preemptive, compares the clinical impact of transitioning from prophylactic to preemptive strategy. The primary outcome is the incidence of CMV viremia at 3‐and 6‐months post‐transplant. Secondary outcomes include: incidence of CMV tissue‐invasive disease, acute cellular rejection, leukopenia and neutropenia, opportunistic infection rates, hospital readmission rates, and mortality at 3‐and 6‐months post‐transplant. A total of 109 patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of CMV viremia was 4.9% and 50.0% (P < 0.001) in the prophylactic versus preemptive cohort, respectively, at 3 months post‐transplant. The incidence of CMV viremia was 24.6% and 8.3% (P = 0.026) in the prophylactic versus preemptive cohort, respectively, at 6 months post‐transplant. There were no statistical significant differences in the secondary outcomes between both cohorts. In conclusion, there is a statistical significant difference in time to onset of CMV viremia; however, the use of either prophylactic or preemptive strategy was not associated with significant negative clinical outcomes of CMV.     

尿毒症肾移植患者围手术期人巨细胞病毒基因检测及意义

目的探讨尿毒症患者肾移植围手术期人类巨细胞病毒(HCMV)基因检测的意义。方法肾移植患者外周血标本56例,健康对照组外周血标本15例。采用荧光定量PCR(FQ-PCR)技术测定标本中HCMV基因拷贝数,结合临床表现进行综合分析。结果56例患者术前HCMV异常表达21例(37.5%),男17例,女4例,检测值(3.84±2.72)×104基因拷贝数/ml;移植术后异常表达增至25例(44.6%),检测值(5.32±4.72)×104基因拷贝数/ml。对照组15例,异常表达1例(6.7%)。结论尿毒症患者肾移植围手术期HCMV基因拷贝数检测可以作为HCMV活动性感染的预警,为临床早期诊断、预防和治疗提供依据。     

动态检测血浆CMV DNA载量在预测肾移植术后并发巨细胞病毒肺炎中的意义

目的探讨肾移植受者巨细胞病毒(CMV)肺炎与病毒载量的关系,寻找预测CMV肺炎的病毒载量阈值。方法应用RT-PCR方法定期随访检测56例肾移植受者血浆中CMVDNA载量。比较CMV肺炎组和非肺炎组术后各时点的载量平均值,筛选预测CMV肺炎的最合适阈值。结果56例患者发生CMV肺炎8例(14.3%)。移植后4周2组CMVDNA载量均在0值附近,第5周肺炎组载量开始上升,第8周达到峰值,然后迅速下降;而非肺炎组观察期间载量均在低水平波动。5~11周期间肺炎组载量平均值高于非肺炎组,其中5、7、9周载量值差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。以术后5~15周内连续3次CMVDNA载量>1×104拷贝/ml作为预测CMV肺炎指标,灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为62.5%、93.8%、62.5%、93.8%,Kappa值0.5625(95%CI=0.2503~0.8747),预警时间2~10周。结论肾移植后CMV肺炎发病前血浆CMVDNA载量值呈持续高水平状态,5~15周内连续3次CMVDNA载量>1×104拷贝/ml是预测CMV肺炎的良好指标。     

Successful prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease after primary CMV exposure in liver transplant recipients.

During a 38-month period, we studied 320 liver transplants in 283 recipients (202 adults, 81 children). CMV disease was documented in 85 patients (30.0%) The major risk factor for CMV disease was primary CMV exposure (transplanting a seropositive allograft into a seronegative recipient). A total of 42 patients (14.8%) had primary CMV exposure. Twenty-one patients were historical controls, while the next 21 received prophylaxis for CMV infection in a nonrandomized trial of consecutive study groups. The regimen of prophylaxis consisted of intravenous immune globulin (IgG; 0.5 g/kg) at weekly intervals for 6 weeks and acyclovir for 3 months. CMV prophylaxis resulted in a dramatic reduction in the incidence of CMV disease (71.4% vs. 23.8%, (P less than 0.01). All cases of CMV were treated with intravenous ganciclovir (5 mg/kg b.i.d. for 14 days), with 5 patients in the control group developing recurrent CMV disease (33.3% relapse). In the 16 patients receiving prophylaxis who did not develop CMV disease, all developed positive CMV-IgG titers with the passive administration of IgG. However, none developed any evidence of CMV infection or viral shedding as assessed by IgM titers and surveillance viral cultures. Four deaths occurred (all control patients), but none were related to CMV disease. Overall patient and graft survivals after primary CMV exposure were 90.5% and 82.2%, respectively, after a mean follow-up of 14 months. Conclusion: Primary CMV exposure is a major risk factor for CMV disease in liver transplant recipients. Intravenous IgG plus acyclovir is safe and effective in preventing CMV infection and disease in this setting. Because of the scarcity of donor organs, we do not advocate protective matching to avoid primary CMV exposure but rather recommend prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in this high-risk group.     

Infection in liver transplant recipients

Despite the advances in liver transplantation, infection continues to be a major problem, with an incidence greater than that observed in other solid organ transplantations. The risk of infection is largely determined by the patient's preoperative condition, operative factors, and the status of immunosuppression. Here we describe the current understanding of bacterial, viral, and fungal infection in patients who underwent liver transplantation.     

Impact of evolving trends in recipient and donor characteristics on cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: This study determines whether the recipient and donor characteristics that influence the cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection rate after liver transplantation have changed. METHODS: The recipient and donor characteristics that may affect the rate of CMV infection were assessed in 232 liver transplant recipients at our institution during a 14-year period (1989-2003). RESULTS: Since 1989, the age of recipients (P=0.0001) and donors (P=0.0001) has increased significantly. Pretransplant CMV seropositivity in recipients has decreased significantly (P=0.0001, 86.4% [1989-1992] to 53.7% [2000-2003]), whereas donor CMV seropositivity has remained unchanged (P>0.20). As a result, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of high-risk (CMV recipient-/donor+) patients (P=0.012); 10.6% of recipients from 1989 to 1992 versus 24.1% of recipients from 2000 to 2003 were CMV recipient-/donor+. The Child-Pugh scores of recipients have remained unchanged over time. However, the proportion of patients undergoing transplantation while being cared for in the intensive care unit has decreased significantly over time (P=0.0002). Despite an increase in the rate of CMV infection (P=0.09), the incidence of CMV disease has decreased significantly (P=0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of high-risk patients (CMV recipient-/donor+) has increased significantly over time, attributable largely to a declining rate of CMV seropositivity in recipients before transplantation. These data have implications for guiding prophylactic practices and resource use after liver transplantation.     

Who among cytomegalovirus-seropositive liver transplant recipients is at risk for cytomegalovirus infection?

A vast majority of the transplant recipients are cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive (R+). We sought to assess variables predictive of CMV infection, specifically in R+ liver transplant recipients. Study patients comprised 182 consecutive liver transplant recipients who survived at least 14 days after transplantation. Surveillance testing was used to detect CMV infection. Pre-emptive therapy was employed for the prevention of CMV disease, however, no antiviral prophylaxis was used for CMV infection. CMV infection developed in 32.5% (38 of 117) of R+ patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of R-/D+, and 3.8% (1 of 26) of R-/D- patients. In R+ patients, Hispanic race (21.6% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.06), donor CMV seropositivity (73.7% vs. 45.6%, P = 0.005), and hepatocellular carcinoma (23.7% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.05) correlated with a higher risk of CMV infection. In a multivariate model, Hispanic race (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.03-11.6, P = 0.045), donor CMV serostatus (OR: 4.0, 95% CI: 1.6-10.2, P = 0.003) and hepatocellular carcinoma (OR: 5.8, 95% CI: 1.6-20.5, P = 0.006) were all significant independent predictors of CMV infection. The aforementioned variables did not portend a higher risk of CMV infection in R-/D+ patients; donor CMV seropositivity overwhelmed all other risk factors in R- patients (P < 0.00001). In conclusion, CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients at risk for CMV infection can be identified based on readily assessable variables. Preventive strategies may be selectively targeted toward these patients.