ppt0000003 [lecture seule] - hÔpital neckernephro-necker.org/pdf/2013/04-merville.pdf · 2013. 6....
TRANSCRIPT
CMV INFECTION IN KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION
PIERRE MERVILLEPIERRE MERVILLEPIERRE MERVILLEPIERRE MERVILLE
CHU BORDEAUX CHU BORDEAUX CHU BORDEAUX CHU BORDEAUX ---- UNIVERSITUNIVERSITUNIVERSITUNIVERSITÉÉÉÉ BORDEAUX SEGALENBORDEAUX SEGALENBORDEAUX SEGALENBORDEAUX SEGALEN
UMRUMRUMRUMR----CNRS 5164CNRS 5164CNRS 5164CNRS 5164
SUMMARY:
1.1.1.1.Epidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantation
2.2.2.2.T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: αβαβαβαβ and and and and γδγδγδγδ lymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocytes
3.3.3.3.CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?
4.4.4.4.Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact
5.5.5.5.Update on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelines
6.6.6.6.PerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectives
AT THE ERA OF GENERALIZED PREVENTION, THE AT THE ERA OF GENERALIZED PREVENTION, THE
RISK OF INFECTION DEPENDS ON THE RISK OF INFECTION DEPENDS ON THE
TREATMENTTREATMENT
Universal
Prophylaxis
Universal
Prophylaxis
Preemptive
Therapy
Preemptive
Therapy
Whole blood CMV qPCR: 1/week J0-M3, 1/month M3-M12
No threshold for anti-CMV therapy
Whole blood CMV qPCR
D0 M3 M12M6
MORE CMV INFECTIONS WITH THE
PREEMPTIVE STRATEGY
qPCRD+R- D+R+ D-R+ n
PRO 6 Mths
PRO 3 Mths PREE PRO PREE PRO PREE
Khoury, 2006 44,0 54,0 18,0 54,0 27,0 75,0 98,0
Kliem, 2008 52,0 74,0 10,0 56,0 0,0 25,0 148,0
Reischig, 2007 75,0 83,0 56,0 96,0 60,0 86,0 70,0
Helentera, 2010 37,0 127,0
Humar, 2010 37,4 50,9 326,0
Van der Beek, 2010 52,0 69,0 78,0
Couzi, 2012 34,0 60,0 112,0
Witzke, 2011 15,6 53,8 3,6 22,2 296,0
Atabani, 2012 70,0 53,0 44,0 368,0
Mean (%) 37,2 51,3 68,3 24,9 62,6 22,7 50,4 1623,0
PRO : ProphylacticPREE: Preemptive
SIMILAR INCIDENCE OF CMV DISEASES
qPCRD+R- D+R+ D-R+ n
PRO 6 Mths
Proph 3 Mths PREE PRO PREE PRO PREE
Khoury, 2006 19,0 8,0 5,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 98,0
Kliem, 2008 148,0
Reischig, 2007 9,0 6,0 13,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 70,0
Helentera, 2010 34,0 127,0
Humar, 2010 16,1 36,8 326,0
Van der Beek, 2010 0,0 0,0 78,0
Couzi, 2012 16,0 26,0 112,0
Witzke, 2011 4,4 19,2 3,6 5,6 296,0
Atabani, 2012 32,5 2,5 0,9 368,0
Mean (%) na 20.2 18.1 7,5 5,4 1,2 1,6 1623,0
PRO : ProphylacticPREE : PreemptiveNa : Not applicable
SUMMARY:
1.1.1.1.Epidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantation
2.2.2.2.T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: αβαβαβαβ and and and and γδγδγδγδ lymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocytes
3.3.3.3.CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?
4.4.4.4.Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact
5.5.5.5.Update on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelines
6.6.6.6.PerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectives
BROADLY TARGETED CMV SPECIFIC CD4 AND CD8 T CELLS BROADLY TARGETED CMV SPECIFIC CD4 AND CD8 T CELLS BROADLY TARGETED CMV SPECIFIC CD4 AND CD8 T CELLS BROADLY TARGETED CMV SPECIFIC CD4 AND CD8 T CELLS
DOMINATE DOMINATE DOMINATE DOMINATE THE MEMORY COMPARTMENTS OF EXPOSED THE MEMORY COMPARTMENTS OF EXPOSED THE MEMORY COMPARTMENTS OF EXPOSED THE MEMORY COMPARTMENTS OF EXPOSED
SUBJECTSSUBJECTSSUBJECTSSUBJECTS
Sylwester et al, J. Exp. Med., 2005; 5: 673-685
70 % of viral peptides are able to generate a T cell response
IN R+ INDIVIDUALS, ANTIIN R+ INDIVIDUALS, ANTIIN R+ INDIVIDUALS, ANTIIN R+ INDIVIDUALS, ANTI----CMV RESPONSE ENGAGES 4CMV RESPONSE ENGAGES 4CMV RESPONSE ENGAGES 4CMV RESPONSE ENGAGES 4----5 % 5 % 5 % 5 %
OF TOTAL CD4 AND CD8 LYMPHOCYTESOF TOTAL CD4 AND CD8 LYMPHOCYTESOF TOTAL CD4 AND CD8 LYMPHOCYTESOF TOTAL CD4 AND CD8 LYMPHOCYTES
Sylwester et al, J. Exp. Med., 2005; 5: 673-685
CONSEQUENCES OF CMV INFECTION: MEMORY
INFLATION AND IMMUNE SENESCENCE?
Vescovini et al, J. Immunol., 2007; 179: 4283-4291
•« CMV would represent the most
important agent of effector T cell
expansion and probably one of the
most important causes for persistent
immune activation in human aging »
CMV-drivenexpansion of γδ T cells
γδγδγδγδ T CELL : A LYMPHOID STRESS SURVEILLANCE T CELL : A LYMPHOID STRESS SURVEILLANCE T CELL : A LYMPHOID STRESS SURVEILLANCE T CELL : A LYMPHOID STRESS SURVEILLANCE
INVOLVED IN CMV INFECTIONINVOLVED IN CMV INFECTIONINVOLVED IN CMV INFECTIONINVOLVED IN CMV INFECTION
Organ recipients
CMV
MCMV
• γδ protect αβ- mice from death• γδ control virus
Mouse model
Months post-tx1210864
0
5
10
15
20 CMV+
CMV-
2
% γ
δ γδ
γδ
γδ T
lym
phoc
ytes
• massive expansion of Vδδδδ2neg cells• diverse TCR repertoire• high expression of MHC-NKR• high expression of CD16
Innate-like features
(JCI, 1999)
Early γδγδγδγδ expanders Late γδ γδ γδ γδ expanders
0
4
8
12
16
20
Wee
k of
infe
ctio
n p<0.0001 • very specific of CMV • associated to infection resolution• long-term blood signature of CMV• TEMRA phenotype,• concomitant to αβ expansion• more rapid response in secondary infection
Adaptive-like features
(JID, 2001; Blood, 2008; JID, 2009, Blood 2012)(JEM, 2005; JASN, 2010; Cancer Res, 2009)
stressstress
CD69
Patients Isolated T cell clones Reporter cell lines
JRT3
TCR-Ligand
TCR transfer
Lentiviral transduction
γδγδγδγδCMVCMV
mAb screening
TCR ligand
identification
CMV-infected
or tumor cells
CMV INFECTION, A RELEVANT MODEL TO UNDERSTAND γδγδγδγδ T CELLS
STRATEGY TO IDENTIFY NEW STRATEGY TO IDENTIFY NEW STRATEGY TO IDENTIFY NEW STRATEGY TO IDENTIFY NEW γδγδγδγδ TCR LIGANDSTCR LIGANDSTCR LIGANDSTCR LIGANDS
TCR
Immunisation
DISCOVERY OF EPCR AS THE LIGAND OF THE DISCOVERY OF EPCR AS THE LIGAND OF THE DISCOVERY OF EPCR AS THE LIGAND OF THE DISCOVERY OF EPCR AS THE LIGAND OF THE
CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE ““““LESLESLESLES”””” (V(V(V(Vγγγγ5V5V5V5Vδδδδ5)5)5)5)
� Involved in coagulation (activator of protein C)� MHC-I-like molecule� Crystallization: associated with phospholipids� expressed on endothelial cells (CMV targets)� Increased expression on carcinoma cells
� Antigen-presenting molecule�Glyco- and phospho-lipid presentation to invariant NKT cells
αααα1
αααα2
EPCRPhospholipids
αααα2
αααα1
CD1d
75
37
25
50
20
IgM 2E9
2E9+ line
IgM 2E9
2E9- line (B Willcox’s team)
EndothelialProtein C Receptor
EPCR
Immunoprecipitation with 2E9 and M/MS
sEPCR directly binds to LES sTCR
-60-40-200 20 40 60 800
200
400
600
800TCR LES TCR MAU TCR αβNone
Res
pons
e (R
U)
Time (s)
EPCR
Kd = 100 µM
(Willcox et al, Nat Immunol 2012)
SUMMARY:
1.1.1.1.Epidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantation
2.2.2.2.T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: αβαβαβαβ and and and and γδγδγδγδ lymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocytes
3.3.3.3.CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?
4.4.4.4.Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact
5.5.5.5.Update on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelines
6.6.6.6.PerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectives
13
Prophylaxis of CMV infection :
D+/R- patients : Which patients require a prolongati on of prophylaxis? R+ patients : Is a treatment necessary for all pati ents?
Treatment of CMV disease :
Should we treat minor/transitory ADNemia?Following complete treatment of CMV disease, which patients
require viral monitoring?
When this patient is really cured?
WHY TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE WHY TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE WHY TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE WHY TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE
RESPONSE?RESPONSE?RESPONSE?RESPONSE?
HOW TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE RESPONSE?HOW TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE RESPONSE?HOW TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE RESPONSE?HOW TO MONITORE SPECIFIC CMV IMMUNE RESPONSE?
= quantiferon
From Sester M, J Lab Med 2008;32:121-130.
SUMMARY OF THE STUDIESSUMMARY OF THE STUDIESSUMMARY OF THE STUDIESSUMMARY OF THE STUDIES
Assays Correlation with ADNemia
Correlation with disease
Clinical impact on treatment decision
QuantiFERON-CMV (N=4) Yes Yes No data
ELISPOT (N=5) Yes Yes No data
Cytométry (N=9) Yes Yes No data
Multimer HLA (N=1) No No No data
Control Rechute
- Limited number of patients (10-134), heterogeneous (R+ and D+R-)
- No clear predictive threshold, weak sensitivity, influence of treatment…
- Probably more a matter of kinetics of the response than an immune threshold.
SUMMARY:
1.1.1.1.Epidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantation
2.2.2.2.T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: αβαβαβαβ and and and and γδγδγδγδ lymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocytes
3.3.3.3.CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?
4.4.4.4.Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact
5.5.5.5.Update on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelines
6.6.6.6.PerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectives
INDIRECT EFFECTS OF CMV INFECTIONINDIRECT EFFECTS OF CMV INFECTIONINDIRECT EFFECTS OF CMV INFECTIONINDIRECT EFFECTS OF CMV INFECTION
Fishman, NEJM, 2007 ; 357: 2601-14
Infection (D+R-)
Or Reactivation (R+)
CMV infection
(DNAemia)
INDIRECTS effects of
CMV
DIRECT effects
CMV disease
CMV
Syndrome
Invasive
disease
Hepatitis
Colitis,
Pneumonia,
Etc, …
RejectionIF/TA
↓↓↓↓ Graft
survival
Arterial
stenosis
↓↓↓↓ Patient
survival
↑↑↑↑ PTLD
↑↑↑↑ Opportunistic
infections
CMV AND ACUTE REJECTION : AN OLD DEBATE
PRO :PRO :PRO :PRO :�Sagedal S, et al. The impact of cytomegalovirus inf ection and disease on rejection episodes in renal a llograft recipients. Am J Transplant. 2002;2(9):850-6.
�Toupance O, et al. Cytomegalovirus-related disease and risk of acute rejection in renal transplant rec ipients: a cohort study with case-control analyses. Transpl Int. 2000;13(6) :413-9.
�Reischig T, et al. Valacyclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive valganciclovir therapy to prevent cytome galovirus disease after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2008; 8(1):69-77.
�Lowance D, et al. Valacyclovir for the prevention o f cytomegalovirus disease after renal transplantati on. International Valacyclovir Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis Transplant ation Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(19):1462- 70.
�Dickenmann MJ, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection and graft rejection in renal transplantation. Transpla ntation. 2001;71(6):764-7.
�Pouteil-Noble C, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection-- an etiological factor for rejection? A prospective study in 242 renal transplant patients. Transplantation. 1993;55(4):85 1-7.
CONTRA :CONTRA :CONTRA :CONTRA :�Couchoud C, et al. Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with antiviral agents in solid organ transplantation: a meta-analysis. Transplantation. 1998;65(5):641-7.
�Erdbruegger U, et al. Impact of CMV infection on ac ute rejection and long-term renal allograft function : a systematic analysis in patients with protocol biopsies and indicated bi opsies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(1):435-43.
Drawbacks :•Retrospective studies•Timing between CMV and acute rejection•Interplay between these two major events in kidney transplantation
EFFECT OF CMV VIREMIA ON SUBCLINICAL ACUTE
REJECTION AND IFTA
Patients and methods :
118 kidney transplant recipients with • Prophylactic treatment (VACV 3 months)• Preemptive treatment (VGCV) • Protocol biopsy at M3
Résults :
DNAemia incidence : 41 % Subclinical acute rejection : 29 %IFTA : 28 %Subclinical acute rejection :
• Is not associated to DNAemia
IFTA• Is associated to DNAemia > 2000 copies (OR: 3.8, p=0.02)
Reischig et al, Transplantation 2009; 87:436-444
SOME YEARS LATER… LATE EFFECTS OF A PREEMPTIVE
TREATMENT
Patients :
Preemptive (VGCV) : N=34Preventive (VACV 3 mois) : N=36
Better patient survival in the preemptive group
With less late-onset CMV infections
Trend to less IFTA in the preemptive group (19 % vs 38 %)
Reischig et al, J Am Soc Nephrol 2012 23: 1588
EFFECT ON DNAEMIA ON GRAFT DYSFUNCTION AT 2
YEARS
N=55 pediatric kidney transplants
22 % of subclinical CMV DNAemia during the first tw o years
Prophylactic treatment for 3 à 12 months
Smith et al, J Am Soc Nephrol 2010, 21: 1579–1586.
More IFTA on protocol biopsies in viremic patients Unless the prophylactic treatment
INDIRECT EFFECTS AT THE LIGHT OF ECOLOGICAL
IMMUNOLOGY: CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE TO A
PATHOGEN
For each individual, a CMV infection has a fitness cost :
Damage caused by the pathogen : direct effectsDamage caused by host immune system : indirect effects
Tolerance is the magnitude of these direct and indirect effects
In transplantation, immunosuppressive treatment can differently modulate the level of tolerance
Ruslan Medzhitov, Disease Tolerance as a Defense S trategy, Science, 2012 , 335, 936
Ayres and Schneider, Tolerance of Infections, Ann R ev Immunol 2012, 30:271-294
SUMMARY:
1.1.1.1.Epidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantationEpidemiology in kidney transplantation
2.2.2.2.T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: T cell response: αβαβαβαβ and and and and γδγδγδγδ lymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocyteslymphocytes
3.3.3.3.CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?CMV monitoring: Why? How? Should I?
4.4.4.4.Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact Indirects effects: Clinical impact
5.5.5.5.Update on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelinesUpdate on CMV guidelines
6.6.6.6.PerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectives
CMV MANAGEMENT CMV MANAGEMENT CMV MANAGEMENT CMV MANAGEMENT –––– FROM FROM FROM FROM CONSENSUS TO CLINICAL PRACTICECONSENSUS TO CLINICAL PRACTICECONSENSUS TO CLINICAL PRACTICECONSENSUS TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
International consensus guidelines on the management
of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation
Transplantation Society International CMV Consensus Group.
Transplantation. 2010 Apr 15;89(7):779-95
Update October 2012
MANAGEMENT OF CMV INFECTION
CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS I
Both universal prophylaxis and pre-emptive strategi es are viable approaches for prevention of CMV disease (D+R- and R +).
For centers or patients unable to meet the stringen t logistic requirements required with a pre-emptive therapy st rategy, prophylaxis is preferred.
Where possible, 6 months may be preferable for D+/R - kidney recipients
When a prophylaxis strategy is used for prevention in R+ patients (with either D+ or D-), 3 months of antiviral medic ation should be used
When a pre-emptive therapy strategy is used, a suff iciently low threshold for initiation of treatment during pre-em ptive therapy is recommended.
MANAGEMENT OF CMV INFECTION
CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS II
Anti-viral medications used in kidney transplant: v alganciclovir, intravenous ganciclovir, or high dose valacyclovir.
Treatment of rejection (ALG, high dose steroids) sh ould result in reinitiation of prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy for 1 to 3 months
The routine use of the hybrid strategy is not recom mended at this time in any risk group
Immune monitoring assays should continue to be impr oved for ease of use and standardization.
Kotton CN, et al. Transplantation 2010; 89:779-795.
PERSPECTIVES
WHO international standard +++ (UI/ML)
Clinical studies on immune monitoring are required
Maribavir and new medications (letermovir, cyclopropavir, CMX001)useful in anti-viral resistance
Vaccines (anti-Gb), humanized anti-CMV antibodies
Modulation of immunosuppression: anti-viral effects of mTOR inhibitors.
MERCI POUR VOTRE
ATTENTION