Scholarlink

<p>CMV-specific immune monitoring may support individualized risk stratification after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT), but its role in the era of letermovir prophylaxis remains unclear. In this prospective single-center study, 45 CMV-seropositive alloHSCT recipients receiving letermovir prophylaxis for 100&#xa0;days post-transplant were followed for 12&#xa0;months. CMV-specific T-cell responses to IE-1 and pp65 were assessed by IFN-γ ELISpot on days 100 and 200, and at the time of CMV infection and follow-up. Early CMV infection occurred in 18/45 patients (40%) during prophylaxis, of which 16 (88.9%) were transient “blips” and required no pre-emptive therapy. In univariate logistic regression, early CMV infection was associated a significantly lower risk of late CMV infection (<i>p</i> = 0.0044). IE-1-specific responses at day 100 were significantly higher in patients without late infection (median 27.5 vs. 5.0 SFC/250,000 PBMCs; <i>p</i> = 0.0056), and in those with early CMV infection (<i>p</i> = 0.0351). T-cell responses were already detectable at the time of CMV infection and remained stable thereafter. In conclusion, early abortive CMV DNAemia during letermovir prophylaxis appears to induces rapid and durable T-cell immunity. Immune monitoring may not be required in these patients, whereas ELISpot testing at day 100 may guide risk-adapted management in those without early CMV exposure.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Early CMV DNAemia during letermovir prophylaxis predicts lower risk of late CMV infection and is associated with enhanced T-cell immunity after alloHSCT

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月20日

查看全文
  • Timothé Duplessix,
  • Ben-Niklas Baermann,
  • Alexander Sebastian Hölscher,
  • Inga Tometten,
  • Felicitas Schulz,
  • Stefanie Munder,
  • Duyen Bao Le,
  • Paul Jäger,
  • Kathrin Nachtkamp,
  • Sascha Dietrich,
  • Jörg Timm,
  • Guido Kobbe,
  • Nadine Lübke

摘要

CMV-specific immune monitoring may support individualized risk stratification after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT), but its role in the era of letermovir prophylaxis remains unclear. In this prospective single-center study, 45 CMV-seropositive alloHSCT recipients receiving letermovir prophylaxis for 100 days post-transplant were followed for 12 months. CMV-specific T-cell responses to IE-1 and pp65 were assessed by IFN-γ ELISpot on days 100 and 200, and at the time of CMV infection and follow-up. Early CMV infection occurred in 18/45 patients (40%) during prophylaxis, of which 16 (88.9%) were transient “blips” and required no pre-emptive therapy. In univariate logistic regression, early CMV infection was associated a significantly lower risk of late CMV infection (p = 0.0044). IE-1-specific responses at day 100 were significantly higher in patients without late infection (median 27.5 vs. 5.0 SFC/250,000 PBMCs; p = 0.0056), and in those with early CMV infection (p = 0.0351). T-cell responses were already detectable at the time of CMV infection and remained stable thereafter. In conclusion, early abortive CMV DNAemia during letermovir prophylaxis appears to induces rapid and durable T-cell immunity. Immune monitoring may not be required in these patients, whereas ELISpot testing at day 100 may guide risk-adapted management in those without early CMV exposure.