Would monitoring CMV immune responses allow improved control of CMV in stem cell transplant patients.
BACKGROUND
Virological monitoring with sensitive assays and subsequent introduction of antiviral preemptive therapy has become a routine strategy in the management of stem cell transplant recipients. Several techniques have been used and each has advantages and disadvantages.


OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review is to discuss the drawbacks of virological monitoring alone for the management of CMV in stem cell transplant recipients.


METHODS
Publications on the success of CMV viral load monitoring were reviewed with special emphasis on the timing of CMV disease after stem cell transplantation.


CONCLUSIONS
During recent years CMV disease has more frequently been documented later after transplantation and has been associated with the absence of CMV-specific immune responses. Repeated antiviral therapy carries the risk of toxicity and the development of resistance. Hence virological monitoring might be insufficient for optimal management of these patients. This realization has spurred interest in evaluating assays for immunological monitoring as a means of improving control of potential CMV disease after transplantation.
Ljungman
Per
P
Hematology Center, Karolinska University Hospital, S-14186 Stockholm, Sweden. Per.Ljungman@ki.se
D003587:Cytomegalovirus / Q000276:immunology* / Q000302:isolation & purification; D003586:Cytomegalovirus Infections / Q000276:immunology / Q000517:prevention & control* / Q000821:virology; D006801:Humans; D010750:Phosphoproteins / Q000097:blood*; D033581:Stem Cell Transplantation / Q000009:adverse effects*; D014763:Viral Matrix Proteins / Q000097:blood*
D010750:Phosphoproteins; D014763:Viral Matrix Proteins; C065418:cytomegalovirus matrix protein 65kDa