To the Editor: As Ramanan et al indicate in their report of the first human T-lymphtropic virus (HTLV) associated myelopathy acquired through live donor kidney transplant in the United States, prevalence of HTLV infection varies considerably in different parts of the world 1. Seroprevalence of HTLV as high as 4.4% has been reported in Central Brooklyn 2. We conducted an Institutional Review Board-approved review of serostatus of 362 potential live kidney donors that presented for evaluation to Downstate Medical Center from 1999 to 2008 and identified eight (2.2%) who were HTLV seropositive. Serology for HTLV was performed with enzyme immunoassay and Western blot (Quest Diagnostics, Madison, NJ). We also analyzed the geographic distribution of HTLV-positive deceased donors (DD) using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 1987 to 2011. There were 176 (0.16%) HTLV-positive donors among 106 141 DDs, after excluding donors with equivocal or unknown serological results. Although the overall prevalence of HTLV seropositivity is low, HTLV-positive donors appear to cluster in certain states, as shown in Table 1. Specifically, states with the 10 highest numbers of HTLV-positive DDs account for 56.1% of all HTLV-positive DDs nationally. HTLV-positive donors were older (45.8 ± 2.3 vs. 38.6 ± 0.1, p < 0.001) and had higher rates of serpositivity for VDRL, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B core antibody (2.8% vs. 0.8%, 11.5% vs. 3.5%, and 11% vs. 5.4%, respectively; p < 0.01 for all three comparisons by χ2). The proportion of donors who meet criteria for high-risk behavior as defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was also higher (13% vs. 8%, p = 0.03 by χ2) in the HTLV-positive group. Logistic regression analysis, however, showed only age (odds ratio [OR] [CI] per decade: 1.16 [1.05–1.22], p = 0.003) and HCV seropositivity (OR [CI]: 2.0 [1.1–3.6], p = 0.03) to be independently associated with HTLV seropositivity, suggesting that clinical predictors have limited role in identifying HTLV-infected donors. Screening serological assays do not distinguish HTLV-I from HTLV-II infections—an important distinction as the clinical relevance of HTLV-II infection is uncertain—and have low specificity. Unlike the results from SRTR data, these shortcomings are less likely to have influenced our center's results in view of additional testing performed using Western blot, and predominance of HTLV-I infection and endemicity of HTLV-associated disease previously reported in our area 2-4. Overall, the observations described above highlight the geographic heterogeneity of risk for HTLV transmission through transplantation. We suggest that Organ Procurement Organizations and transplant programs ascertain their local prevalence of HTLV infection to help guide appropriate screening of live and deceased donors. F. Tedla1,*, A. Brar1, D. John2 and N. Sumrani2 1Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 2Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY *Corresponding author: Fasika Tedla, fasika.tedla@downstate.edu The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.
Read full abstract