Letermovir conversion after valganciclovir treatment in cytomegalovirus high‐risk abdominal solid organ transplant recipients may promote development of cytomegalovirus‐specific cell mediated immunity

Abstract

To evaluate the association of conversion from valganciclovir to letermovir on cytomegalovirus-specific cellular immunity. Adult patients were included if they received a kidney or liver transplant between 8/1/2018-12/31/20, developed symptomatic, high-level CMV viremia and were converted to letermovir 480mg daily as monotherapy after treatment with ganciclovir-derivatives for a minimum of 4weeks and had subsequent CMV cell-mediated immunity (CMI) testing via ICS assay by flow cytometry (Viracor Eurofins T Cell Immunity Panel). Seven patients met inclusion criteria; 87.5% were male and recipients of a kidney transplant. All patients were CMV high risk (D+/R-). Mean time from transplant to CMV disease was 200±91 days. Peak viral load (VL) during CMV treatment was 540,341±391,211 IU/mL. Patients received a mean of 30±24weeks (range: 4-78weeks) of therapy with ganciclovir-derivatives at induction doses prior to letermovir introduction. The median absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) at letermovir initiation was 400/μL (IQR 575) and the median VL was 51.6 (range: ND-490) IU/mL. Most patients (n=5/7, 71.4%) experienced an increase in VL 1 and/or 2weeks after conversion to letermovir. All patients had positive CMI per ICS assay after conversion. Patients received a mean of 10.3±6.9weeks of letermovir prior to having a positive result. Median ALC at positivity was 900/μL. Immunosuppression was not further reduced from initiation of letermovir to demonstration of CMV CMI. No patient had progressive replication or breakthrough disease while maintained on letermovir and three patients (42.9%) underwent antiviral withdrawal without recurrence at the last follow-up. In this case series of abdominal transplant recipients with severe or persistent CMV infection, patients developed CMV-specific CMI after conversion to letermovir monotherapy. These data suggest that using letermovir in place of valganciclovir for secondary prophylaxis may address the lack of efficacy previously seen with this approach, as well as the issues that plague antiviral withdrawal with systematic monitoring. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate this effect in a more controlled research environment with serial CMI testing to elucidate the optimal duration of letermovir when used in this way.