Approaches and Challenges in the Current Management of Cytomegalovirus in Transplant Recipients: Highlighting the Role of Advanced Practice Providers (Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants).

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, with traditional anti-CMV therapies limited by their associated toxicities and the development of resistance. Clinical providers are often faced with challenging and complicated CMV infections that require multiple courses of antiviral therapies. Increasingly, advanced practice providers (APPs) are playing an important role in the day-to-day management of transplant recipients with CMV infection, including resistant/refractory CMV and other complex CMV syndromes. Here, we provide an overview of current preventative and treatment strategies for CMV infection in HCT and SOT recipients, highlighting the challenging aspects of current management and the potential utility of newer antiviral agents. This article also focuses on how a multidisciplinary team, orchestrated by APPs, can improve CMV-associated patient outcomes. Protocols using antiviral agents for the prevention or treatment of CMV infections require carefully designed and meticulously implemented strategies to ensure the best clinical outcomes for patients. APPs, who have increasingly become the frontline providers of outpatient care for transplant recipients, are ideally positioned to design and carry out these protocols.

Cell-free DNA measurable residual disease as a predictor of postallogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant outcomes.

The measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment provides an attractive predictor of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplnat (alloHCT) outcomes. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has been applied to diagnosis, early detection, and disease burden monitoring in various tumors, but its utility as an MRD test in myeloid malignancies has not been systematically evaluated. We sought to determine the differential sensitivity between bone marrow (BM) and cfDNA MRD and to assess the effect of cfDNA MRD on alloHCT outcomes. The technical and clinical validation cohorts, including 82 patients participating in clinical trials (Bone Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network-0201 and 0402), were used. Ultradeep error-corrected targeted sequencing was performed on plasma and BM-derived DNA. We demonstrated that 94.6% (range, 93.9-95.3) of cfDNA was derived from hematopoietic tissue. The mutant allele fraction was congruent between BM and cfDNA (rho = 0.8; P < .0001); however, cfDNA seemed to be more sensitive in detecting clones with a variant allele frequency (VAF) of <0.26%. cfDNA-MRD clearance by day 90 after alloHCT (D90) was associated with improved relapse-free survival (RFS, median survival not reached vs 5.5 months; P < .0001) and overall survival (OS, median survival not reached vs 7.3 months; P < .0001) when compared with patients with persistent MRD. Irrespective of pre-alloHCT MRD, D90 cfDNA MRD was associated with inferior 2-year OS (16.7% vs 84.8%; P < .0001) and RFS (16.7% vs 80.7%; P < .0001). cfDNA seems to be an accurate, minimally invasive alternative to BM aspirates in MRD assessment and confers important prognostic implications in patients with myeloid malignancies undergoing alloHCT.

Outcomes of transplant recipients treated with cidofovir for resistant or refractory cytomegalovirus infection.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of ganciclovir-resistant (GCV-R)/refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in blood/marrow transplant (BMT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients remains suboptimal. Cidofovir (CDV), a nucleotide analogue with anti-CMV activity, is nephrotoxic and oculotoxic. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of SOT and BMT patients with GCV-R/refractory CMV treated with CDV between 1/1/2008 and 12/31/2017. DATA COLLECTED: baseline demographics, CMV serostatus, clinical and virologic presentations and outcomes, UL97 and UL54 genotype mutations, drug toxicities, and cause of death. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: 16 patients received CDV for treatment of CMV: six BMT and 10 SOT. Seven (47%) of the patients had high-risk donor/recipient serostatus: six (60%) SOT were D+/R-; one (16.7%) BMT was D-/R+. Median time to CMV DNAemia was 131 days post-transplant (IQR, 37.5-230.3). Proven tissue invasive disease was present in three patients (18.8%). Twelve (75%) had genotype testing; 10 (83.3%) of those had antiviral resistance mutations. While on CDV, six (37.5%) developed nephrotoxicity, and four (25%) developed uveitis (two had both uveitis and nephrotoxicity). Eight (50%) had failure to clear CMV DNAemia despite CDV treatment. Eight (50%) of the patients died; median time to death, after initiation of CDV, was 33.5 days [IQR22-988]. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of good therapeutic alternatives, CDV is used in GCV-R/refractory CMV infection. However, it is associated with a substantial risk of toxicity and failure to clear CMV DNAemia, highlighting the need for development of newer and less toxic therapies. The high mortality in this group of patients underscores the severity of illness in this population.