Per Ljungman1, Ronald Brand2, Jennifer Hoek2, Rafael de la Camara3, Catherine Cordonnier4, Hermann Einsele5, Jan Styczynski6, Katherine N Ward7, Simone Cesaro8. 1. Department of Hematology, Karolinska University Hospital, and Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Hematology, Hospital de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain. 4. Sve d' Hematologie, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France. 5. Med. Klinik und Poliklinik II, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Germany. 6. Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Collegium Medicum UMK, University Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland. 7. Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, United Kingdom; 8. Paediatric Haematology Oncology, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Verona, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of a cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative donor for a CMV-seronegative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipient is generally accepted. However, the importance of donor serostatus in CMV-seropositive patients is controversial. METHODS: A total of 49 542 HSCT patients, 29 349 seropositive and 20 193 seronegative, were identified from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database. Cox multivariate models were fitted to estimate the effect of donor CMV serological status on outcome. RESULTS: Seronegative patients receiving seropositive unrelated-donor grafts had decreased overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.21; P < .0001) compared with seronegative donors, whereas no difference was seen in patients receiving HLA-matched sibling grafts. Seropositive patients receiving grafts from seropositive unrelated donors had improved overall survival (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, .86-.98; P < .01) compared with seronegative donors, if they had received myeloablative conditioning. This effect was absent when they received reduced-intensity conditioning. No effect was seen in patients grafted from HLA-identical sibling donors. The same association was found if the study was limited to patients receiving transplants from the year 2000 onward. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the negative impact on overall survival if a CMV-seropositive unrelated donor is selected for a CMV-seronegative patient. For a CMV-seropositive patient, our data support selecting a CMV-seropositive donor if the patient receives a myeloablative conditioning regimen.
BACKGROUND: The use of a cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative donor for a CMV-seronegative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipient is generally accepted. However, the importance of donor serostatus in CMV-seropositive patients is controversial. METHODS: A total of 49 542 HSCT patients, 29 349 seropositive and 20 193 seronegative, were identified from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database. Cox multivariate models were fitted to estimate the effect of donor CMV serological status on outcome. RESULTS: Seronegative patients receiving seropositive unrelated-donor grafts had decreased overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.21; P < .0001) compared with seronegative donors, whereas no difference was seen in patients receiving HLA-matched sibling grafts. Seropositive patients receiving grafts from seropositive unrelated donors had improved overall survival (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, .86-.98; P < .01) compared with seronegative donors, if they had received myeloablative conditioning. This effect was absent when they received reduced-intensity conditioning. No effect was seen in patients grafted from HLA-identical sibling donors. The same association was found if the study was limited to patients receiving transplants from the year 2000 onward. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the negative impact on overall survival if a CMV-seropositive unrelated donor is selected for a CMV-seronegative patient. For a CMV-seropositive patient, our data support selecting a CMV-seropositive donor if the patient receives a myeloablative conditioning regimen.
Authors: M Sarmiento; R Parody; F Márquez-Malaver; I Espigado; J Falantes; T Caballero; C Calderón; M Carmona; J López Haldon; J A Pérez-Simón Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Brandon K C Au; Ted A Gooley; Philippe Armand; Min Fang; David K Madtes; Mohamed L Sorror; Michael J Boeckh; Christopher J Gibson; Hans Joachim Deeg; Rainer Storb; Frederick R Appelbaum; Jason W Chien; Paul J Martin Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Derek J Hanson; Hu Xie; Danielle M Zerr; Wendy M Leisenring; Keith R Jerome; Meei-Li Huang; Terry Stevens-Ayers; Michael Boeckh; David M Koelle; Joshua A Hill Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Sebastian J Theobald; Christoph Kreer; Sahamoddin Khailaie; Agnes Bonifacius; Britta Eiz-Vesper; Constanca Figueiredo; Michael Mach; Marija Backovic; Matthias Ballmaier; Johannes Koenig; Henning Olbrich; Andreas Schneider; Valery Volk; Simon Danisch; Lutz Gieselmann; Meryem Seda Ercanoglu; Martin Messerle; Constantin von Kaisenberg; Torsten Witte; Frank Klawonn; Michael Meyer-Hermann; Florian Klein; Renata Stripecke Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 6.823
Authors: R Crocchiolo; L Castagna; S Furst; R Devillier; B Sarina; S Bramanti; J El-Cheikh; A Granata; S Harbi; L Morabito; C Faucher; A Rimondo; D Girardi; B Mohty; B Calmels; C Carlo-Stella; C Chabannon; R Bouabdallah; A Santoro; N Vey; P J Weiller; D Blaise Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Jason Chen; Justine Abella Ross; Bernard Tegtmeier; Dongyun Yang; James I Ito; John A Zaia; Jana K Dickter; Ryotaro Nakamura; Sally Mokhtari; Jane Kriengkauykiat; Monzr M Al Malki; Sanjeet S Dadwal Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 2.228