Immunovirology of cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients undergoing prophylaxis with letermovir: A narrative review

• Published in: Journal of medical virology Vol. 95; no. 8; pp. e29005 - n/a
• Main Authors: Solano, Carlos, Giménez, Estela, Albert, Eliseo, Piñana, José L., Navarro, David
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.08.2023
• Subjects: Acetates - therapeutic use; Adult; Allografts; Antiviral agents; Antiviral Agents - therapeutic use; Antiviral drugs; Blood; CMV DNA load; CMV‐specific T cells; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus - genetics; Cytomegalovirus Infections - drug therapy; Cytomegalovirus Infections - prevention & control; Deoxyribonucleic acid; Disease prevention; DNA; FDA approval; Health services; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - adverse effects; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - methods; Humans; Infections; letermovir; letermovir resistance; Lymphocytes; Lymphocytes T; management of CMV DNAemia; Patients; Peripheral blood; Prophylaxis; Stem cell transplantation; Stem cells; Transplant Recipients; Virology; letermovir; CMV-specific T cells; CMV DNA load; cytomegalovirus; letermovir resistance; management of CMV DNAemia
• ISSN: 0146-6615; 1096-9071; 1096-9071
• DOI: 10.1002/jmv.29005

On November 7, 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of letermovir (LMV) for prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in adult CMV‐seropositive allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients. After 6 years of use, a large body of real‐world experience has been accumulated that validates the Phase III clinical trial results, in which LMV was shown to significantly reduce the risk of clinically significant CMV infection—defined as CMV end‐organ disease or CMV DNAemia requiring pre‐emptive antiviral therapy (PET)—and increase survival up to Week 24 after treatment inception. Notwithstanding, several issues still need to be settled, thus further investigation is required. First, since viral DNA may accumulate as a result of LMV‐driven abortive CMV infection, what is the optimal viral load threshold in the blood that would prompt LMV prophylaxis interruption and PET inception? Should this be adapted to the patient's risk? Second, what is the impact of LMV prophylaxis on the reconstitution of functional CMV‐specific T‐cell responses? Would it be a wise approach to individually tailor the duration of LMV treatment according to the number of peripheral blood CMV‐specific T cells at the end of regular prophylaxis? Third, how frequently do LMV‐resistant strains arise while patients are on LMV prophylaxis and how could this be minimized? Here, we discuss the literature addressing these topics.