Cell-mediated Immunity to Guide Primary Prophylaxis for CMV Infection in Organ Transplant Recipients: A Multicenter Single-arm Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few interventional studies using CMV cell-mediated immunity (CMI) to guide antiviral prophylaxis. We assessed the Quantiferon-CMV (QTF-CMV) assay to guide CMV prophylaxis duration in high-risk organ transplant recipients. METHODS: A single-arm, multicenter, prospective interventional study including high-risk kidney, pancreas, liver, and heart transplant recipients who were either donor CMV-seropositive, recipient-seronegative (D + /R - ) or recipient-seropositive with antithymocyte globulin (R + /ATG) induction. CMI testing was performed using the QTF-CMV assay at months 3, 4, 5, and 6 posttransplant. Prophylaxis was discontinued for a positive CMI but continued for a negative result up to a maximum of 6 mo. The primary endpoint was CMV viremia ≥1000 IU/mL up to 1 y posttransplant. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were included, comprising kidney (n = 89), kidney-pancreas (n = 7), liver (n = 10), and heart (n = 2) transplants. Eighty-nine patients (82.4%) completed the study protocol (n = 39 D + /R - and n = 50 R + /ATG). In the D + /R - group, only 1 of 39 patients (2.6%) had a positive QTF-CMV result. In the R + /ATG group, 33 of 50 patients (66%) had a positive QTF-CMV result before 6 mo, allowing for early discontinuation of prophylaxis (28 at month 3, 4 at month 4, and 1 at month 5). During the follow-up, CMV viremia ≥1000 IU/mL occurred in only 4 of 33 patients (12.1%) who discontinued prophylaxis early compared with 6 of 17 patients (35.3%) with negative QTF-CMV results and continued prophylaxis (hazard ratio 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-1.09; P = 0.07). No R + patient developed CMV disease. CONCLUSIONS: QTF-CMV-guided prophylaxis appears useful in R + patients who may benefit from a tailored duration of prophylaxis. This strategy does not appear to be useful in D + /R - patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".