Smaranda Gliga1, Johannes Korth2, Adalbert Krawczyk3, Benjamin Wilde2, Peter A Horn4, Oliver Witzke5, Monika Lindemann4, Melanie Fiedler3. 1. Institute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; Institute for Virology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: smaranda.gliga@uk-essen.de. 2. Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Institute for Virology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Institute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assays detecting CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) may support the current management of CMV infection in solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients, by allowing a better risk assessment and adjusting antiviral treatment. OBJECTIVES: The primary endpoint was the performance of two tests measuring CMV-specific interferon-gamma production, both approved for commercial use in clinical settings. Secondarily, we determined a cut-off for the cellular immune response, which protects against CMV reactivation/infection. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty kidney transplant (KTx) patients were stratified according to their CMV-IgG status pre-transplantation (Tx) and were divided into two groups: pre-emptive (donor-/recipient+, donor+/recipient+) and prophylaxis (donor+/recipient-). An ELISpot (T-Track-CMV) was performed at month 1 post-Tx (pre-emptive group) and end of prophylaxis and one month thereafter (prophylaxis group). An ELISA (QuantiFERON-CMV) was performed every 2-4 weeks (pre-emptive) or monthly (prophylaxis), in parallel to the CMV viral load (PCR). RESULTS: A good positive agreement was obtained between the QuantiFERON-CMV or T-Track-CMV and the CMV-IgG (kappa = 0.839 and 0.824, respectively). A cut-off of 19.5 spot forming units (SFU)/200,000 lymphocytes for the T-Track-CMV IE-1 (AUC = 0.802, sensitivity 45%, specificity 100%) and 495 SFU/200,000 lymphocytes for the T-Track-CMV pp65 (AUC = 0.617, sensitivity 11%, specificity 100%) was defined to assess protection against reactivation. The QuantiFERON-CMV performed modestly (AUC = 0.477, cut-off 85.1 IU/ml). CONCLUSIONS: The QuantiFERON-CMV and T-Track-CMV enable the functional assessment of CMV-specific CMI in KTx recipients. In combination with CMV viral load monitoring, T-Track-CMV results could stratify patients at risk of CMV reactivation/infection.
BACKGROUND: Assays detecting CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) may support the current management of CMV infection in solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients, by allowing a better risk assessment and adjusting antiviral treatment. OBJECTIVES: The primary endpoint was the performance of two tests measuring CMV-specific interferon-gamma production, both approved for commercial use in clinical settings. Secondarily, we determined a cut-off for the cellular immune response, which protects against CMV reactivation/infection. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty kidney transplant (KTx) patients were stratified according to their CMV-IgG status pre-transplantation (Tx) and were divided into two groups: pre-emptive (donor-/recipient+, donor+/recipient+) and prophylaxis (donor+/recipient-). An ELISpot (T-Track-CMV) was performed at month 1 post-Tx (pre-emptive group) and end of prophylaxis and one month thereafter (prophylaxis group). An ELISA (QuantiFERON-CMV) was performed every 2-4 weeks (pre-emptive) or monthly (prophylaxis), in parallel to the CMV viral load (PCR). RESULTS: A good positive agreement was obtained between the QuantiFERON-CMV or T-Track-CMV and the CMV-IgG (kappa = 0.839 and 0.824, respectively). A cut-off of 19.5 spot forming units (SFU)/200,000 lymphocytes for the T-Track-CMV IE-1 (AUC = 0.802, sensitivity 45%, specificity 100%) and 495 SFU/200,000 lymphocytes for the T-Track-CMV pp65 (AUC = 0.617, sensitivity 11%, specificity 100%) was defined to assess protection against reactivation. The QuantiFERON-CMV performed modestly (AUC = 0.477, cut-off 85.1 IU/ml). CONCLUSIONS: The QuantiFERON-CMV and T-Track-CMV enable the functional assessment of CMV-specific CMI in KTx recipients. In combination with CMV viral load monitoring, T-Track-CMV results could stratify patients at risk of CMV reactivation/infection.