Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 27:8:534268.
doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.534268. eCollection 2020.

Advances in CMV Management: A Single Center Real-Life Experience

Affiliations

Advances in CMV Management: A Single Center Real-Life Experience

Michele Malagola et al. Front Cell Dev Biol. .

Abstract

CMV infection is a major challenge in allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). The changing landscape in CMV management includes the introduction of letermovir in prophylaxis of high-risk patients and the source of CMV DNA monitoring (plasma-PL vs. whole blood-WB), for pre-emptive therapy (PET) initiation. We report here how our real-life experience in CMV management evolved, following letermovir registration. We focus on: (i) the effects of systematic use of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in high-risk patients, (ii) the results of a longitudinal comparison of CMV DNAemia monitoring in PL and WB. From December 2018 to April 2020, 60 allo-SCTs have been performed in our center (LET ERA), of whom 45 received letermovir in prophylaxis from day 0 to day + 100, because of recipient positivity of anti CMV IgG. These patients were compared with a cohort of 41 allo-SCTs performed between November 2017 and November 2018 (NO LET ERA). Firstly, the incidence of CMV clinically significant infections, CMV disease, bacterial infections, proven/probable fungal infections, hospital re-admissions after allo-SCT by day + 100 in the two ERA were 8 vs. 44% (p = 0.0006), 2 vs. 12% (p = 0.02), 37 vs. 56% (p = 0.05), 8 vs. 19% (p = 0.09), and 23 vs. 39% (p = 0.09), respectively. By day + 180 these differences were 17 vs. 68% (p < 0.00001), 2 vs. 12% (p = 0.02), 45 vs. 78% (p = 0.09), 8 vs. 22% (p = 0.05), and 40 vs. 66% (p = 0.01), respectively. Secondly, from February to May 2019, we comparatively measured CMV DNA from WB and PL and we confirmed that there is a linear correlation between CMV DNA level in WB and PL (Spearman's test r = 0.86). Moreover, CMV DNAemia at the time of PET in the 12 patients with a clinically significant CMV infection was higher in WB vs. PL (5.202 vs. 4.981 copies/ml, p = 0.1). Our real-life experience confirms that: (i) letermovir is highly effective, leading to a significant drop in CMV clinically significant infections and CMV-related complications by day + 100 and + 180 after allo-SCT; (ii) WB may be an effective alternative to PL as a source for CMV DNA monitoring, as a linear correlation of DNAemia was confirmed between WB and PL, even if the CMV DNAemia at PET initiation was comparable in the two sources.

Keywords: CMV; CMV DNA monitoring; allogeneic stem cell transplantation; pre-emptive therapy; prophylaxis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Median value of CMV-DNAemia of the 18 patients with CMV reactivation who were monitored simultaneously from PL and WB. (B) Linear correlation between the CMV DNAemia assessed on PL and WB in the 18 patients who experienced a CMV reactivation.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
(A) CMV DNAemia monitored on PL of the 12 patients who received PET. Week 0 includes the maximum DNAemia. Negative weeks include the DNAemia before the peak and positive weeks include the DNAemia during PET. (B) CMV DNAemia monitored on WB of the 12 patients who received PET. Week 0 includes the maximum DNAemia. Negative weeks include the DNAemia before the peak and positive weeks include the DNAemia during PET.

References

    1. Anderson A., Raja M., Vaquez N., Morris M., Komanduri K., Camargo J. (2020). Clinical “real-world” experience with letermovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. Clin. Transplant. 3:e13866. - PubMed
    1. Ariza-Heredia E. J., Nesher L., Chemaly R. F. (2014). Cytomegalovirus disease after stem cell transplantation: a mini-review. Cancer Lett. 342 1–8. - PubMed
    1. Boeckh M., Ljungman P. (2009). How we treat cytomegalovirus in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. Blood 113 5711–5719. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boeckh M., Nichols W. G. (2004). The impact of cytomegalovirus serostatus of donor and recipient before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the era of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. Blood 103 2003–2008. - PubMed
    1. Cariani E., Pollara C., Valloncini B., Perandin F., Bonfanti C., Manca N. (2007). Relationship between pp65 antigenemia levels and real-time quantitative DNA PCR for human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) management in immunocompromised patients. BMC Infect. Dis. 7:138. 10.1186/1471-2334-7-138 - DOI - PMC - PubMed