4.7 Article

Donor Cytomegalovirus Transmission Patterns in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Primary Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 223, 期 5, 页码 827-837

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa450

关键词

cytomegalovirus; genotype; transmission; transplant recipients; coinfection

资金

  1. Alberta Innovates [RES0035113]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that multiple CMV strain transmission from donors to seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is not uncommon, with multiple strains identified in some recipients. Therefore, D+/R- SOT recipients with CMV coinfection can experience changes in strain predominance in late waves of CMV DNAemia.
Background. The epidemiology of single versus multiple cytomegalovirus (CMV) strain transmission from donor (D+) to seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients (R-) is uncertain, as is whether relapsing recipient infection represents changing strain predominance when multiple strains are transmitted. Here we characterized CMV strain transmission patterns in D+/R- SOT recipients. Methods. We studied pairs or groups of D+/R- SOT recipients who received organs from a common donor (group A) and recipients who experienced >= 2 waves of CMV DNAemia (group B). CMV in plasma was characterized by genotype-specific real-time PCR for genes gB and gH. Results. Single concordant genotypes were identified in 12 of 18 recipient pairs/group sharing a common donor (group A); at least 6 of 18 (33%) donors transmitted > 1 strain. A single CMV strain was detected in 14 of 15 recipients in group B; only 1 recipient had coinfection. A shift in CMV strain predominance occurred after the first posttransplant year in at least 4 recipients with coinfection. Conclusions. Using a common donor approach, we confirmed that multiple CMV strain transmission from donors to R- SOT recipients is not uncommon. D+/R- SOT recipients with CMV coinfection can undergo changes in strain predominance in late waves of CMV DNAemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据