To the Editor:
A number of factors interact to determine the risk of viral infections/reactivations following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In the last decade, this issue became even more relevant with the introduction of new transplant platforms, including in particular the growing use of Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) as graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis . Although the recovery is fast and robust among patients treated with PT-Cy, this approach may affect the dynamics and final output of immune reconstitution, as well as impact the risk of infections, exposing HSCT recipients to higher incidence of viral infections [2, 3].
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) represents a relevant complication in HSCT recipients with PT-Cy , although the recent advent of letermovir prophylaxis has profoundly changed CMV presentation also in this context [5,6,7,8,9]. Although rare, human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6)  and adenovirus (AdV)  have emerged as additional threats in HSCT recipients. This changing epidemiology of viral infections poses new challenges, from post-transplant monitoring to potential prophylactic/therapeutic approaches.
In this context, post-transplant immune reconstitution plays a major role in determining the outcome of HSCT recipients . Immune cell counts provide only a general indication of the competence of the patient immune system, whereas the quantitative and functional assessment of virus-specific T-cell responses may be more relevant to patient’s risk stratification and clinical decision-making, thereby encouraging immune-monitoring of patients . Moreover, while still experimental and often limited to research studies, adoptive immunotherapy with virus-specific lymphocytes could definitely benefit from more data on virus-specific immune-reconstitution to extend its applicability on a broader scale .
However, the implementation of data on virus-specific T-cell responses in the risk stratification and clinical decision-making of patients undergoing HSCT still needs validation in prospective clinical trials , and information is lacking about the current practice across centers. In September 2021, the Cellular Therapy & Immunobiology Working Party (CTIWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) decided to conduct a survey across centers to identify current policies to monitor virus-specific immune reconstitution in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT.
This study followed the EBMT study guidelines. All EBMT centers were invited to participate. A specific limited/closed questionnaire has been developed and sent to leaders of centers for completion directly or by delegates. Questions included the assessment of center practice regarding the monitoring of viral specific T-cell responses for CMV, HHV6 and AdV, asking details on the methodology of detection, the threshold levels of detection and the clinical use in specific transplant settings. The answers given by centers were summarized using descriptive statistics.
Policies for post-transplant virus-specific immune monitoring were collected for 152 EBMT centers, active in 37 countries (Fig. 1a), corresponding to 33% of the full reporting EBMT allogeneic sites. Centers have been classified as “smaller” (performing less than 50 allogeneic HSCT/year) or “larger” (performing at least 50 allogeneic HSCT/year) on the basis of their transplant volume per year ; consequently data on center activity have been showed according to this categorization (Fig. 1b). The participating centers perform allogeneic HSCT in adults only (43%), children only (26%) or both (31%), and use various donor sources (all centers use HLA-identical related, 94% matched unrelated, 99% mismatched related, 56% cord blood).
CMV viremia is routinely monitored after allogeneic HSCT in all centers, although 8 (5.3%) centers search for CMV only in case of seropositive donors and/or recipients. However, only 17 (11%) centers are currently testing CMV-specific T-cell responses, either within clinical practice (35%), experimental practice (12%), or both (53%) (Fig. 1c). Flow-cytometry based tests to assess CMV-specific T-cells (e.g. intracellular cytokines, MHC multimer binding), mainly set up in house, are used in 7 centers (41%). IFN-γ Enzyme-Linked Immunospot (ELISpot) is adopted in 15 (88%) centers, either with home-made or commercial assays. CMV Quantiferon is used in only 4 (24%) centers and mainly through commercial assays. Additionally, other home-made tests (e.g. proliferation assays or different CMV-specific T-cell subsets) are rarely applied. Thresholds are not harmonized among centers. In centers performing these assays, information on CMV-specific immune responses is currently taken into consideration to guide the treatment with “Off-the-Shelf” virus-specific T-cells and/or to decide on the duration of the antiviral therapy.
In 111 (73%) centers, AdV viremia was monitored in allogeneic HSCT recipients, in all HSCT recipients (59% of these centers), or in presence of potential risk factors (i.e. GvHD, aplastic anemia, alternative donor source, HLA-mismatched donor, in-vivo/ex-vivo T-cell depletion, second HSCT procedure). Moreover, 29% of the centers monitored the virus only in case of symptoms. Additionally, 8 centers check for AdV-specific T-cell responses, using different home-made or commercial assays (e.g. MHC multimer binding, intracellular cytokines, IFN-γ ELISpot, limiting dilution analysis), both as experimental and clinical practice (Fig. 1c). Main reasons to assess AdV-specific T-cell responses are: viral reactivation and/or low response of viremia to antiviral therapies.
Longitudinal monitoring for HHV6 viremia in allogeneic HSCT recipients is performed in 103 (68%) centers, in all HSCT recipients (53% of these centers) or in presence of potential risk factors (14%; including GvHD, previous viral reactivations, alternative donor source, HLA-mismatched unrelated donor, in-vivo/ ex-vivo T-cell depletion). Moreover, additional 33% of the centers search for the virus in case of clinical suspicion. Tests for HHV6-specific T-cell responses are reported by two centers (Fig. 1c), adopting home-made IFN-γ ELISpot or limiting dilution analysis for antigen-specific T-cells. One center performs the test in any case of HHV6 reactivation, while the other only in case of HHV6-related organ involvement.
Frequencies of T-cells specific for other viruses are currently tested in 15 (9.9%) centers, and in particular regarding Epstein-Barr virus (EBV; n = 14), BK virus (n = 4), varicella-zoster virus (VZV; n = 3), herpes simplex virus (HSV; n = 2) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; n = 1).
A higher proportion of ‘pediatrics only’ centers were smaller in terms of transplant volume (86% performing less than 50 allogeneic HSCT/year), as compared to ‘adults only’ (54%) or ‘adults/pediatrics’ (49%) centers. Additionally, ‘pediatrics only’ centers monitored AdV more frequently (87%) compared to ‘adults only’ (63%) or ‘adults/pediatrics’ (77%).
No relevant differences have been observed in monitoring policies among larger and smaller centers.
Overall, 21 (13.8%) centers are performing at least one type of virus-specific immune monitoring, while 14 (9.2%) centers at least two types (mainly CMV and AdV), 6 (3.9%) centers at least three types, and one center more than three types.
Furthermore, 47 (31%) centers are planning to start monitoring for virus-specific immune responses in the future, mainly for CMV (n = 41), HHV6 (n = 18), AdV (n = 19), EBV (n = 26), BK virus (n = 5), SARS-CoV-2 (n = 4).
The timely reconstitution, both for numbers and function, of a donor-derived immune system is of utmost importance for the recovery of wellbeing and long-term survival of patients after allogeneic HSCT . According to this EBMT survey, immune monitoring for virus-specific T-cell responses is currently performed in a limited number of centers and is highly variable in terms of targets, technologies and interpretation. These results underline the need to harmonize and standardize methods, both for routine and investigational purposes. The heterogeneity of the adopted assays prevents us from detecting any specific trends. Accreditation in compliance with quality standards may be an additional requirement for a larger use of these functional tests and their comparability.
Moreover, the monitoring of CMV-specific responses should probably be more widely adopted for its clinical value in the new era of letermovir prophylaxis . Since letermovir use potentially delays the occurrence of CMV infection and CMV-specific immune reconstitution, immunological  and virologic monitoring should be implemented after discontinuation of its prophylaxis. More frequent HHV6  and AdV  cases have been reported across different donor sources and also in an adult setting with PT-Cy approaches [2, 3], potentially explaining this trend towards a more careful monitoring of viremia for many centers in recent years. In this context new monitoring guidelines are warranted.
In conclusion, improved reporting and communication between centers adopting these technologies is needed to foster collaborative and comparative research studies in the future, which may translate into new immune monitoring guidelines.
The final analysis dataset will be available upon specific request to the Working Party chair.
Williams L, Cirrone F, Cole K, Abdul-Hay M, Luznik L, Al-Homsi AS. Post-transplantation Cyclophosphamide: From HLA-Haploidentical to Matched-Related and Matched-Unrelated Donor Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Front Immunol. 2020;11:636 https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00636.
Oltolini C, Greco R, Galli L, Clerici D, Lorentino F, Xue E, et al. Infections after Allogenic Transplant with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide: Impact of Donor HLA Matching. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020;26:1179–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.01.013.
Cieri N, Oliveira G, Greco R, Forcato M, Taccioli C, Cianciotti B, et al. Generation of human memory stem T cells after haploidentical T-replete hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2015;125:2865–74. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-11-608539.
Goldsmith SR, Abid MB, Auletta JJ, Bashey A, Beitinjaneh A, Castillo P, et al. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide is associated with increased cytomegalovirus infection: a CIBMTR analysis. Blood. 2021;137:3291–305.
Lin A, Flynn J, DeRespiris L, Figgins B, Griffin M, Lau C, et al. Letermovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Haploidentical and Mismatched Adult Donor Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis. Transpl Cell Ther. 2021;27:85.e1–85.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.10.009.
Lin A, Maloy M, Su Y, Bhatt V, DeRespiris L, Griffin M, et al. Letermovir for primary and secondary cytomegalovirus prevention in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: Real-world experience. Transpl Infect Dis. 2019;21:e13187 https://doi.org/10.1111/tid.13187.
Mori Y, Jinnouchi F, Takenaka K, Aoki T, Kuriyama T, Kadowaki M, et al. Efficacy of prophylactic letermovir for cytomegalovirus reactivation in hematopoietic cell transplantation: a multicenter real-world data. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2021;56:853–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-020-01082-z.
Robin C, Thiebaut A, Alain S, Sicre de Fontbrune F, Berceanu A, D’Aveni M, et al. Letermovir for Secondary Prophylaxis of Cytomegalovirus Infection and Disease after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Results from the French Compassionate Program. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020;26:978–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.01.027.
Sharma P, Gakhar N, MacDonald J, Abidi MZ, Benamu E, Bajrovic V, et al. Letermovir prophylaxis through day 100 post transplant is safe and effective compared with alternative CMV prophylaxis strategies following adult cord blood and haploidentical cord blood transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:780–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0730-y.
Greco R, Crucitti L, Noviello M, Racca S, Mannina D, Forcina A, et al. Human Herpesvirus 6 Infection Following Haploidentical Transplantation: Immune Recovery and Outcome. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2016;22:2250–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.09.018.
Sedlacek P, Petterson T, Robin M, Sivaprakasam P, Vainorius E, Brundage T, et al. Incidence of Adenovirus Infection in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients: Findings from the AdVance Study. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2019;25:810–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.12.753.
Ogonek J, Kralj Juric M, Ghimire S, Varanasi PR, Holler E, Greinix H, et al. Immune Reconstitution after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Front Immunol. 2016;7:507 https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2016.00507.
Cordonnier C, Ljungman P, Cesaro S, Hirsch HH, Maschmeyer G, von Lilienfeld-Toal M, et al. The EHA Research Roadmap: Infections in Hematology. Hemasphere. 2021;5:e662 https://doi.org/10.1097/HS9.0000000000000662.
Greco R, Ciceri F, Noviello M, Bondanza A, Vago L, Oliveira G, et al. Immune monitoring in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: a survey from the EBMT-CTIWP. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2018;53:1201–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0167-8.
Passweg JR, Baldomero H, Chabannon C, Corbacioglu S, de la Camara R, Dolstra H, et al. Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on hematopoietic cell transplantation and cellular therapies in Europe 2020: a report from the EBMT activity survey. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2022;57:742–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-022-01604-x.
Marty FM, Ljungman P, Chemaly RF, Maertens J, Dadwal SS, Duarte RF, et al. Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus in Hematopoietic-Cell Transplantation. N. Engl J Med. 2017;377:2433–44. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1706640.
Gabanti E, Borsani O, Colombo AA, Zavaglio F, Binaschi L, Caldera D, et al. Human Cytomegalovirus-Specific T-Cell Reconstitution and Late-Onset Cytomegalovirus Infection in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients following Letermovir Prophylaxis. Transpl Cell Ther. 2022;28:211.e1–211.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtct.2022.01.008.
This study was led and supported by the EBMT CTIWP. We are grateful to all physicians, nurses, and other staff treating these patients under very challenging circumstances and still being able to help with providing data for this manuscript. We are grateful to the all the EBMT affiliated centers contributing to this survey: University Hospital of Oran, Oran, Algeria; The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia; Elisabethinen-Hospital, Linz, Austria; St. Anna Kinderspital, Vienna, Austria; Medizinische Universitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria; Bahrain Oncology Center, Muharraq, Bahrain; Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), Antwerp E, Belgium; ZNA, Antwerp, Belgium; Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium; Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil; National Hospital of Haematological Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria; Bone Marrow Transplantation Center, Hangzhou, China; Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai, China; Institute of Hematology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Tianjin, China; Xinqiao Hospital, Chongqing, China; University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic; Charles University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic; University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic; Olomouc University Hospital, Olomouc, Czech Republic; University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czech Republic; HUCH Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland; Institut d’Hematologie et d’Oncologie Pediatrique, Lyon, France; Programme de Transplantation&Therapie Cellulaire, Marseille, France; Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France; CHU Nice - Hôpital de l’ARCHET I, Nice, France; Hôpital Robert Debre, Paris, France; Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyon, France; Techniciens d’Etude Clinique suivi de patients greffes, Strasbourg, France; Saint-Louis Hospital, BMT Unit, Paris, France; Universitaetsklinikum Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Universitaetsklinikum Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany; Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany; University Hospital | Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany; University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany; Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; Medical Clinic and Policinic 1, Leipzig, Germany; Klinikum Karlsruhe gGmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany; Universitaetsklinikum Muenster, Muenster, Germany; Klinik fuer Innere Medzin III, Ulm, Germany; University Children’s Hospital, Wuerzburg, Germany; University Hospital | Essen, Duesseldorf, Germany; Klinikum Nuernberg, Nuernberg, Germany; University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany; University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany; Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece; George Papanicolaou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; St Sophia Children’s Hospital, Athens, Greece; Borsod-Abaúj- Zemplén County Central Hospital, Miskolc, Hungary; Central Hospital of Southern Pest, Budapest, Hungary; Children’s Medical Centre/Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Teheran, Iran, Islamic Rep.; Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Islamic Rep.; Hope Directorate, Dublin, Ireland; Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Petach-Tikva, Israel; Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel; Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy; Centro Trapianti di Midollo Osseo, Monza, Italy; Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Verona, Italy; Clinica di Oncoematologia Pediatrica, Padova, Italy; Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Milano, Italy; Ospedale San Raffaele s.r.l., Milano, Italy; Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Modena Policlinico, Modena, Italy; Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Udine, Udine, Italy; Institute G. Gaslini, Genova, Italy; Univ. La Sapienza, Rome, Italy; Centro Trapianti Unico Di CSE Adulti e Pediatrico A. O Brotzu, Cagliari, Italy; IRRCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, Italy; Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Bianchi Melacrino Morelli - Centro Unico Trapianti A. Neri, Reggio C, Italy; Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio E, Italy; Az. Ospedaliera S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy; Fondazione IRCCS - Ca’ Granda, Milano, Italy; Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy; ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy; S. Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy; USD Trapianti di Midollo, Adulti, Brescia, Italy; Ospedale Civile, Pescara, Italy; Universita Cattolica S. Cuore, Rome, Italy; Ospedale Dell’Angelo, Venezia, Italy; Meyer University Children Hospital, Firenze, Italy; Sezione di Ematologia, Perugia, Italy; Istishari Hospital, Amman, Jordan; King Hussein Cancer Centre, Amman, Jordan; Hospital Ampang, Ampang, Malaysia; Princess Maxima Center/ University Hospital for Children (WKZ), Utrecht, Netherlands; Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands; University Medical Centre, Utrecht, Netherlands; Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands; University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands; Leiden University Hospital, Leiden, Netherlands; Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway; Children’s University Hospital, Lublin, Poland; Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Oncohematology, Gliwice, Poland; Fundacja “Na Ratunek Dzieciom z Choroba Nowotworowa”, Wroclaw, Poland; University Hospital, Collegium Medicum UMK, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland; Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland; Inst. Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal; Inst. Portugues Oncologia, Lisboa, Portugal; National Center for Cancer Care & Research, Doha, Qatar; Emergency Hospital “Louis Turcanu” Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania; Coltea Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania; Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania; Regional Children’s Hospital, Ekaterinburg, Russia; First State Pavlov Medical University of St. Petersburg, Petersburg, Russian Federation; Federal Research Center for Pediatric Hematology, Moscow, Russian Federation; King Abdul - Aziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Mother and Child Health Care Institute of Serbia “Dr Vukan Cupic”, Belgrade, Serbia; Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; Centre for clinical Haematology, Singapore, Singapore; Pediatric University Teaching Hospital, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa; Hospital U. Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain; Niño Jesus Children’s Hospital, Madrid, Spain; Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain; Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain; Institut Catalá d’Oncologia Hospital Duran i Reynals, Barcelona, Spain; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain; Fundació Institut d’Investigació Sanitària Illes Balears IdISBa, Palma, Spain; University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain; Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Hospital Clínico de Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Département d’Oncologie, Service d’Hématologie, Geneva, Switzerland; University Children’s Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland; University Hospital | Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Centre National de Greffe de Moelle, Tunis, Tunisia; Altinbas University, Faculty of Medicine, Bahçelievler Medicalpark Hospital, Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey; Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Erciyes University, Faculty of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey; Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Emsey Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; Baskent University Hospital, Adana, Turkey; Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Hacettepe University Children’s Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Medical Park Antalya Hospital, Antalya, Turkey; Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Yorkshire Blood & Marrow Transplant Programme, Leeds, United Kingdom; St. Bartholomew’s and The Royal London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom; Sheffield Childrens NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
The EBMT provided resources via the working party, data office and registry. Other than EBMT support there is no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Greco, R., Hoogenboom, J.D., Bonneville, E.F. et al. Monitoring for virus-specific T-cell responses and viremia in allogeneic HSCT recipients: a survey from the EBMT Cellular Therapy & Immunobiology Working Party. Bone Marrow Transplant 58, 603–606 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-023-01939-z
This article is cited by
Dynamics of polyclonal immuno-reconstitution after allogeneic transplant with post-transplant cyclophosphamide and letermovir
Bone Marrow Transplantation (2023)