TY - JOUR
T1 - Cytomegalovirus Immunity Assays Predict Viremia but not Replication Within the Lung Allograft
AU - Li, Jenny
AU - Gardiner, Bradley J.
AU - Stankovic, Sanda
AU - Oates, Clare V.L.
AU - Cristiano, Yvonne
AU - Levvey, Bronwyn J.
AU - Brooks, Andrew G.
AU - Snell, Gregory I.
AU - Westall, Glen P.
AU - Sullivan, Lucy C.
N1 - Funding Information:
The work of L.C.S. and G.P.W. was supported by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council Project. We acknowledge the ongoing support of the Lungitude Foundation, particularly for providing the funding for T-Track-CMV kits used in this study. L.C.S. is also supported by funding from the Lungitude Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s).
PY - 2023/6/9
Y1 - 2023/6/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85163178120&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001501
DO - 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001501
M3 - Article
C2 - 37313314
AN - SCOPUS:85163178120
SN - 2373-8731
VL - 9
JO - Transplantation Direct
JF - Transplantation Direct
IS - 7
M1 - e1501
ER -