Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
QuantiFERON-Cytomegalovirus Assay for Prediction of Cytomegalovirus Viremia in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Study From High Cytomegalovirus Seroprevalence Country.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Pongsakornkullachart Kritsada, Chayakulkeeree Methee, Vongwiwatana Attapong, Kantakamalakul Wannee, Skulratanasak Peenida, Phoompoung Pakpoom
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Early studies showed the utility of pretransplant QuantiFERON-Cytomegalovirus (QF-CMV) assays for CMV-disease prediction post kidney transplant (KT). However, recent data are conflicting.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled adult patients undergoing KT between July 2017 and May 2019. Patients with antithymocyte globulin therapy or negative pretransplant CMV IgG were excluded. QF-CMV assays were performed on transplantation day and one month thereafter, and CMV viral loads were obtained 1, 3, and 6 months posttransplantation. The primary outcome was CMV viremia within 6 months. The QF-CMV assay-posttransplant CMV viremia association was analyzed.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled (male, 58.2%; mean (SD) age, 46.5 (10.2) years). Fifty-two (94.5%) received CMV-seropositive donor kidneys. Over 6 months, 29 patients developed CMV viremia (52.7%), with 14 (25.5%) having significant viremia requiring antiviral therapy. The CMV-viremia incidence of patients with nonreactive and reactive baseline QF-CMV assays did not differ significantly (55.3% and 47.1%; p = 0.573). Among patients with reactive pretransplant QF-CMV assays, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of CMV viremia for those who were persistently reactive at 1 month after KTs, although there was no statistically significant difference (50% vs 83%; p = 0.132).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study could not support the use of single-timepoint pretransplant or 1-month posttransplant QF-CMV assays as a predictor for posttransplant CMV viremia in CMV seropositive KT recipients. Investigation of the association between dynamic QF-CMV-status changes and CMV-viremia incidence are needed.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled adult patients undergoing KT between July 2017 and May 2019. Patients with antithymocyte globulin therapy or negative pretransplant CMV IgG were excluded. QF-CMV assays were performed on transplantation day and one month thereafter, and CMV viral loads were obtained 1, 3, and 6 months posttransplantation. The primary outcome was CMV viremia within 6 months. The QF-CMV assay-posttransplant CMV viremia association was analyzed.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled (male, 58.2%; mean (SD) age, 46.5 (10.2) years). Fifty-two (94.5%) received CMV-seropositive donor kidneys. Over 6 months, 29 patients developed CMV viremia (52.7%), with 14 (25.5%) having significant viremia requiring antiviral therapy. The CMV-viremia incidence of patients with nonreactive and reactive baseline QF-CMV assays did not differ significantly (55.3% and 47.1%; p = 0.573). Among patients with reactive pretransplant QF-CMV assays, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of CMV viremia for those who were persistently reactive at 1 month after KTs, although there was no statistically significant difference (50% vs 83%; p = 0.132).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study could not support the use of single-timepoint pretransplant or 1-month posttransplant QF-CMV assays as a predictor for posttransplant CMV viremia in CMV seropositive KT recipients. Investigation of the association between dynamic QF-CMV-status changes and CMV-viremia incidence are needed.