Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39007131›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024

Cellular immunity against cytomegalovirus and risk of infection after kidney transplantation.

Kjersti B Blom, Grete B Kro, Karsten Midtvedt, Trond G Jenssen, Anna Varberg Reisæter, Hallvor Rollag, Anders Hartmann, Solbjørg Sagedal, Ivar Sjaastad, Garth Tylden and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

14 authors.

Kjersti B BlomDepartment of Nephrology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
Grete B KroDepartment of Microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Karsten MidtvedtDepartment of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Trond G JenssenFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Anna Varberg ReisæterDepartment of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hallvor RollagFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Anders HartmannDepartment of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Solbjørg SagedalDepartment of Nephrology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
Ivar SjaastadInstitute for Experimental Medical Research, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
Garth TyldenDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Gro NjølstadDepartment of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Einar NilsenDepartment of Microbiology, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Molde, Norway.
Jon A Birkeland *Department of Nephrology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
Anders Åsberg *Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a challenge following kidney transplantation (KTx). Currently, CMV-IgG serostatus at transplantation is used to individualize CMV preventive strategies. We assessed the clinical utility of CMV-IGRA for predicting CMV infection following KTx. Methods: We performed a nationwide prospective cohort study from August 2016 until December 2022. Data from all adult KTx recipients in Norway, n=1,546 (R+; n=1,157, D+/R-; n=260, D-/R-; 129), were included with a total of 3,556 CMV-IGRA analyses (1,375 at KTx, 1,188 at eight weeks, 993 one-year after KTx) and 35,782 CMV DNAemia analyses. Results: In R+ recipients CMV-IGRA status, measured at any of the time-points, could not identify any differential risk of later CMV infection. D+/R- recipients remaining CMV-IGRA negative 1-year after transplantation (regardless of positive CMV DNAemia and/or CMV IgG status at that time) had increased risk of developing later CMV infection compared to D+/R- recipients who had become CMV-IGRA positive (14% vs. 2%, p=0.01). Conclusion: Knowledge of pre-transplant CMV-IGRA status did not provide additional information to CMV-IgG serostatus that could improve current post-transplant CMV treatment algorithms. However, D+/R- recipients with a persisting negative CMV-IGRA one-year after transplantation remained at increased risk of experiencing later CMV infection. Therefore we advocate post-transplant CMV-IGRA monitoring in these patients.

Indexed as

CytomegalovirusCytomegalovirus InfectionsImmunity, CellularKidney TransplantationAdultAgedAntibodies, ViralFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin GMaleMiddle AgedNorwayProspective StudiesRisk FactorsAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GCMI (cell mediated immunity)CMV-IGRAcytomegalovirus (CMV)cytomegalovirus infectionkidney transplansplantation

Identifiers

PMID39007131
PMCPMC11239502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.