Dynamics and Evolution of Donor-derived Cytomegalovirus Infection in 3 Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With the Same Multiorgan Donor

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection poses a significant risk to immunosuppressed transplant recipients, manifesting through primary infection, reinfection, or reactivation. METHODS: We analyzed the emergence of drug resistance in CMV infection in 3 patients who were later found to have received an allograft from a shared, deceased donor. The seronegative transplant recipients developed symptomatic CMV infections after bowel/pancreas, kidney, or lung transplantation. Prospective Sanger sequencing was used to identify mutations in the viral DNA polymerase (DP) and protein kinase (PK). DP and PK variants were retrospectively quantified by targeted next-generation sequencing. The impact of the novel DP-A505G substitution on drug susceptibility was assessed using a recombinant virus. Whole-genome sequencing of clinical CMV samples was enabled through target DNA enrichment. RESULTS: The DP-A505G substitution was found in all patient samples and could be associated with a natural polymorphism. A subsequent review of the patients' clinical histories revealed that they had all received organs from a single donor. The CMV infection exhibited divergent evolution among the patients: patient 1 developed resistance to ganciclovir and foscarnet because of 2 DP mutations (V715M and V781I), patient 2 showed no genotypic resistance, and patient 3 developed ganciclovir (PK-L595S) and maribavir resistance (PK-T409M). Interpatient variation across the entire CMV genome was minimal, with viral samples clustering in phylogenetic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 transplant recipients were infected with the same donor-derived CMV strain and readily developed different drug susceptibility profiles. This underscores the importance of judicious antiviral drug use and surveillance in preventing antiviral resistance emergence.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.