Quantiferon-CMV Guided Prophylaxis Fails to Lower Infection in Seropositive Kidney Recipients

Refining Cytomegalovirus Risk Stratification in Kidney Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus remains a primary driver of opportunistic morbidity and graft complications following kidney transplantation [1, 2]. While high-risk serodiscordant pairs typically receive universal prophylaxis, the optimal management for seropositive recipients, who comprise up to 95% of the transplant population in some regions, remains a subject of clinical debate [3, 4]. Current strategies often fluctuate between universal prophylaxis, which carries risks of neutropenia and late-onset disease, and preemptive therapy, which requires intensive virological surveillance [5, 6]. Recent efforts have focused on using cell-mediated immunity assays to individualize these protocols by measuring the patient's functional T-cell response against the virus [7, 6]. A new study now evaluates whether this immunoguided approach can successfully transition from high-risk protocols into routine clinical practice for low-risk recipients.

Evaluating Immune Monitoring in Low-Risk Cohorts

The clinical management of cytomegalovirus depends heavily on the pre-transplant serostatus of both the donor and the recipient. While high-risk seronegative patients receiving an organ from a seropositive donor, categorized as D+/R–, face the highest threat of primary infection, they often do not mount detectable immunity during the first months post-transplant. This lack of early immune response limits the utility of functional assays in this specific subgroup. Conversely, cytomegalovirus seropositive recipients (R+) comprise between 50% and 95% of the kidney transplant population depending on the geographical region. In these patients, the incidence of cytomegalovirus disease is generally low, particularly among those who do not receive induction therapy with antithymocyte globulins, a potent T-cell depleting agent that significantly increases the risk of viral reactivation by suppressing the cellular defenses normally responsible for keeping the virus in a latent state. To better stratify risk in these patients, clinicians have turned to cytomegalovirus cell-mediated immunity assays. These diagnostic tools evaluate the risk of viral replication by measuring the functional response of T-cells to cytomegalovirus antigens, a strategy formally known as immune monitoring. The Fourth International Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation currently recommend the use of these assays for R+ patients receiving antithymocyte globulins. In that specific clinical context, immune monitoring allows for the early discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis in patients who demonstrate a robust immune response. However, the utility of this approach remains less clear for R+ patients who do not receive antithymocyte globulins and are already perceived to be at very low risk for complications.

Clinical Trial Design and Primary Outcomes

The study conducted by Caso and colleagues utilized the commercial Quantiferon-CMV assay, an interferon-gamma release assay (a blood test that measures the amount of interferon-gamma signaling proteins released by T-cells when exposed to viral antigens), to guide clinical decision-making. The researchers focused on cytomegalovirus seropositive (R+) kidney transplant recipients who did not receive induction therapy with antithymocyte globulin, a population generally considered to be at lower risk for viral complications. Within the first 2 weeks following transplantation, clinicians performed the assay to stratify patients into two distinct management pathways. Patients who demonstrated a reactive test result were classified as low risk and managed with a preemptive approach, which involves serial viral load monitoring and initiating treatment only upon evidence of replication. Conversely, those with a negative test result were categorized as high risk and immediately started on antiviral prophylaxis to prevent the onset of infection. In the intervention group, approximately 20% of patients yielded a negative Quantiferon-CMV assay result and subsequently received antiviral prophylaxis. The remaining 80% of the intervention cohort, along with 100% of the historical control cohort, were managed using the standard preemptive approach. The researchers defined the primary outcome of the study as the incidence of cytomegalovirus infection requiring antiviral therapy. Despite the targeted use of prophylaxis in the high-risk subgroup, the data showed no significant difference in the incidence of cytomegalovirus infection requiring antiviral therapy between the intervention and historical cohorts. While the intervention group recorded fewer absolute cases of cytomegalovirus disease, specifically 2 cases compared to 9 cases in the historical group, the study may have lacked the statistical power to detect a significant benefit in the primary endpoint because the intervention only altered the management of one-fifth of the treated population.

Predictive Value and Assay Limitations

The discrepancy between infection rates and clinical outcomes in this study highlights the nuanced performance of cell-mediated immunity testing. While the primary endpoint of infection requiring therapy did not differ significantly between groups, the researchers observed that the incidence of cytomegalovirus disease was lower in the intervention group, with only 2 cases compared to 9 cases in the historical cohort. This finding aligns with broader clinical observations suggesting that these assays appear to perform better at predicting the risk of symptomatic cytomegalovirus disease, which is a more robust clinical endpoint, than predicting asymptomatic viral replication. This distinction is critical for clinicians, as it suggests that patients with a reactive test result may possess sufficient cellular immunity to spontaneously control viral replication before it progresses to clinical disease, even if they do not entirely prevent the initial viral surge. The clinical utility of the Quantiferon-CMV assay is currently constrained by its specific predictive characteristics. These assays generally show good positive predictive value (the probability that a patient with a positive test result will truly remain free of infection). However, they suffer from low negative predictive value, which indicates that a negative test result is a poor predictor of which patients will actually go on to develop an infection. This limitation complicates the decision to initiate prophylaxis, as many patients with negative results may never have developed an infection even without intervention. Furthermore, the choice of assay may influence these outcomes. For instance, enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays (ELISpot assays), which quantify individual cytokine-secreting cells to provide a more granular count of the immune response, allow for more detailed risk stratification. Unlike the binary results often used with the Quantiferon-CMV assay, ELISpot assays allow risk stratification based on the interferon response against 0, 1, or 2 specific antigens, potentially providing a more precise immunological map for the practicing transplant physician.

Feasibility and Future Optimization

The practical implementation of immune monitoring in a busy transplant center depends heavily on the reliability and timing of the laboratory results. In this study, the researchers found that the logistical integration of the assay was successful, as most Quantiferon-CMV tests in the study yielded interpretable results and were performed according to protocol. This suggests that the technical requirements of the assay do not necessarily preclude its use in the early post-operative window. However, the authors noted that the global availability of commercial cell-mediated immune assays remains limited, which may hinder the widespread adoption of this strategy in routine clinical practice across different geographic regions. Furthermore, the study highlighted the necessity of including formal cost-effectiveness analyses in future trials to determine if the expense of routine testing is justified by a measurable reduction in clinical complications or a decrease in the duration of antiviral therapy. To enhance the clinical utility of immune monitoring, the researchers identified several avenues for refining the predictive accuracy of these tests. Because the current binary interpretation may not fully capture the nuances of the immune response, potential improvements for predictive value include using different interferon-gamma thresholds, adding clinical predictors like age or donor type, or delaying the assay to 4 weeks post-transplant. Adjusting the interferon-gamma threshold (the specific concentration of the cytokine that triggers a positive result) could allow for a more sensitive or specific cutoff tailored to low-risk populations. Similarly, delaying the test until 4 weeks post-transplant might provide a more stable assessment of the patient's cellular immunity once the initial high doses of induction immunosuppression have begun to taper. Ultimately, the findings support the development of additional pragmatic clinical trials to evaluate various assays and optimization strategies across diverse transplant populations to better define the role of immune monitoring in personalized medicine.

References

1. Jesus GK, Costa R, Franco GO, Marconi C, Arriaga MB, Netto EM. Incidence of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection in After Kidney Transplant Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Reviews in Medical Virology. 2026. doi:10.1002/rmv.70092

2. Kaminski H, Kamar N, Thaunat O, et al. Incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in seropositive kidney transplant recipients treated with everolimus: A randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 4 trial.. American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons. 2022. doi:10.1111/ajt.16946

3. Chung M, Chen C, Chang S, et al. Prevention and management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in kidney transplant: A consensus statement of the Transplantation Society of Taiwan.. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2024.05.009

4. Reischig T, Vlas T, Kacer M, et al. A Randomized Trial of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Therapy in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2023. doi:10.1681/ASN.0000000000000090

5. Páez-Vega A, Vaquero-Barrios JM, Ruiz-Arabi E, et al. Safety and efficacy of immunoguided prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus disease in low-risk lung transplant recipients in Spain: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3, noninferiority trial.. The Lancet regional health. Europe. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101268

6. Páez-Vega A, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez B, Agüera ML, et al. Immunoguided Discontinuation of Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated With Antithymocyte Globulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2022. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab574

7. Manuel O, Laager M, Hirzel C, et al. Immune Monitoring-Guided Versus Fixed Duration of Antiviral Prophylaxis Against Cytomegalovirus in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2023. doi:10.1093/cid/ciad575