Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30123828›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2018

Impact of CMV PCR Blips in Recipients of Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Isabelle P Lodding, Amanda Mocroft, Caspar da Cunha Bang, Finn Gustafsson, Martin Iversen, Nikolai Kirkby, Michael Perch, Allan Rasmussen, Henrik Sengeløv, Søren S Sørensen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cytomegalovirus "Blips" and Rates of Progression to Clinically Significant CMV in Cardiothoracic Transplant Recipients.Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Isabelle P LoddingCentre for Health, Immunity and Infectious diseases (CHIP), Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Amanda MocroftInstitute for Global Health, Infection and Population Health, University College of London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Caspar da Cunha BangDepartment of Haematology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Finn GustafssonDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Martin IversenDepartment of Cardiology, Section for Lung Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nikolai KirkbyDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael PerchDepartment of Cardiology, Section for Lung Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Allan RasmussenDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik SengeløvDepartment of Haematology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren S SørensenDepartment of Nephrology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens D LundgrenCentre for Health, Immunity and Infectious diseases (CHIP), Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViral blips reflecting polymerase chain reaction (PCR) artefacts or transient low-level replication are well described in the human immunodeficiency virus setting. However, the epidemiology of such blips in transplant recipients screened for cytomegalovirus (CMV) with PCR remains uncertain and was investigated in a cohort of solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell recipients.

methodsEligible recipients had known donor/recipient CMV IgG serostatus, and 3 CMV PCRs ≥. The CMV PCR triplicates (3 consecutive CMV PCRs) were defined; the first CMV PCR was always negative, and the time between the second and third samples was 7 days ≤. A positive second but negative third sample represented a blip. Odds ratio (OR) for factors associated with a triplicate being a blip was estimated by binomial regression adjusted for repeated measurements. Whether blips affected the hazard ratio (HR) for subsequent CMV infection was determined with a Cox model.

results851 recipients generated 3883 CMV PCR triplicates. The OR of a triplicate representing a blip decreased with increasing viral load of the second sample (vs 273 IU/mL; >273-910 IU/mL: odds ratio [OR], 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.5; >910 IU/mL: OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.2;

conclusionsCytomegalovirus blips are frequent; particularly when the viral load of the first positive PCR is < 910 IU/mL, and serostatus risk is intermediary/low. Accumulating blips suggest intermittent low-level replication. If blips are suspected, confirmation of ongoing replication before initiation of treatment is prudent.

Identifiers

PMID30123828
PMCPMC6089517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.