Impact of pretransplant CMV-specific T-cell immune response in the control of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Although solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with pretransplant serology for cytomegalovirus (CMV-R+) are considered at intermediate risk for CMV infection post transplantation, CMV infection remains a major cause of morbidity in this population. We prospectively characterized whet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Molina-Ortega, A, Martín-Gandul, C, Mena-Romo, J D, Rodríguez-Hernández, M J, Suñer, M, Bernal, C, Sánchez, M, Sánchez-Céspedes, Javier, Perez-Romero, Pilar, Cordero, E
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2019
País:España
Institución:Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)
Repositorio:Repisalud
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/10272
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/10272
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Cytokines
Cytomegalovirus
Cytomegalovirus Infections
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Transplantation
Prospective Studies
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Although solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with pretransplant serology for cytomegalovirus (CMV-R+) are considered at intermediate risk for CMV infection post transplantation, CMV infection remains a major cause of morbidity in this population. We prospectively characterized whether having pretransplant CMV-specific cellular immunity is independently associated with controlling infection after transplantation in R + SOT recipients. METHODS: A prospective cohort of consecutive R + SOT recipients that received pre-emptive treatment for CMV infection was monitored after transplantation and variables were recorded during the follow-up. The cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell immune response was characterized by intracellular cytokine staining and viral loads determined using real-time PCR. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five R + SOT recipients were included (67 kidney, 64 liver, four liver-kidney). Only one-third of the patients (42; 31.85%) had CMV-specific T-cell immunity (CD8+CD69+INF-γ+ T cells >0.25%) before transplantation. Patients with negative pretransplant immunity had more CMV infection (49, 52.7% vs. 15, 35.7%; p 0.07) and received more antiviral therapy than those with immunity (32, 34.4% vs. 6, 14.3%, p 0.016). Having CMV specific immunity was an independent factor for protection from developing viraemia ≥2000 IU/mL (OR 0.276, 95% CI 0.105-0.725, p < 0.01) and lower administration of treatment (OR 0.398, 95% CI 0.175-0.905, p 0.028). Only patients with no pretransplant CMV-specific T-cell response were diagnosed with CMV-disease (8, 8.6% vs. 0, 0%, p 0.05). DISCUSSION: Our results show that having a pretransplant CMV specific T-cell response may be associated with a lower rate of CMV viraemia and less antiviral treatment after transplantation; however, more prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.