m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2023

Immunologic Monitoring after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation: T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV, Are They the Same?

Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Callens Rutger, Colman Sofie, Delie Anke, Schauwvlieghe Alexander, Lodewyck Tom, Selleslag Dominik, Reynders Marijke, Kerre Tessa, Padalko Elizaveta

Аннотация

Despite prophylactic and preemptive strategies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and disease remains major concerns after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). In recent years, immunologic monitoring using CMV commercially available IFN-γ release assays (IGRAs) has gained interest to better risk-stratify immunocompromised patients or to guide prophylactic therapy. CMV-IGRA can quantify CMV cell-mediated immunity by measuring the IFN-γ that is released by CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes in the presence of CMV antigens. However, the 2 most widely used CMV-IGRAs, T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV, had not yet been compared in the setting of an allo-HSCT. In the present study, we performed a method comparison between T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV at 28 days and 100 days post-allo-HSCT, and to assess predictive values of both tests for CMV reactivation. Twenty-seven patients were included in a bicentric prospective trial. Samples were obtained on days +28 and +100 post-allo-HSCT, and patients' clinical information was collected up to day +270 post-HSCT. Comparisons of methods were performed using Cohen's κ. On day +28 (n = 26) post-allo-HSCT, T-SPOT.CMV yielded 3 positive test results and QuantiFERON-CMV yielded 2 positive results. On day +100 (n = 24), T-SPOT.CMV produced 7 positive test results, and QuantiFERON-CMV produced 9. One discordant result was obtained at day +28 (n = 26), and 6 discordant results were obtained at day +100 (n = 24). Method comparison showed a strong agreement on day +28 (κ = .780; 95% confidence interval [CI], .366 to 1.000) but only a moderate agreement on day +100 (κ = .442; 95% CI, .070 to .814) and in pooled data from both time points (κ = .578; 95% CI, .300-.856). Four clinically significant CMV infections (CS-CMVi) were observed, all occurring after discontinuation of letermovir prophylaxis. None of those 4 patients had a positive result with either test at day +100 (or day +28). Thus, the negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity were very high, at 100% for both tests measured at day +100. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and specificity were considerably lower at day +100 (T-SPOT.CMV: PPV, 23.5%; specificity, 35%; QuantiFERON-CMV: PPV, 26.7%; specificity, 45%). T-SPOT.CMV and QuantiFERON-CMV had only moderate agreement (at day +100) after allo-HSCT. Although these IGRAs are very promising, as shown by their very high NPVs for protection against CS-CMVi, they are not interchangeable. Future research should stipulate which IGRA was used, and future guidelines preferably should be assay-specific. As QuantiFERON-CMV still lacks a large post-allo-HSCT validation study, the moderate agreement with T-SPOT.CMV poses a significant hurdle in the routine implementation of this test.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты