Search

Introduction: Herpes virus infections are a major concern after solid organ transplantation and linked to the immune function of the recipient. We aimed to determine the incidence of positive herpes virus (cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus type 1/2 (HSV-1/2), and varicella zoster virus (VZV)) PCR tests during the first year post-transplantation and assess whether a model including immune function pre-transplantation and three months posttransplantation could predict a subsequent positive herpes virus PCR. Methods: All participants were preemptively screened for CMV, and EBV IgG-negative participants were screened for EBV during the first year posttransplantation. Herpes virus PCR tests for all included herpes viruses (CMV, EBV, HSV-1/2, and VZV) were retrieved from the Danish Microbiology database containing nationwide PCR results from both hospitals and outpatient clinics. Immune function was assessed by whole blood stimulation with A) LPS, B) R848, C) Poly I:C, and D) a blank control. Cytokine concentrations (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p40, IL-17A, IFN-α, and IFN-γ) were measured using Luminex. Results: We included 123 liver (54%), kidney (26%), and lung (20%) transplant recipients. The cumulative incidence of positive herpes virus PCR tests was 36.6% (95% CI: 28.1-45.1) during the first year post-transplantation. The final prediction model included recipient age, type of transplantation, CMV serostatus, and change in Poly I:C-induced IL-12p40 from pre-transplantation to three months post-transplantation. The prediction model had an AUC of 77% (95% CI: 61-92). Risk scores were extracted from the prediction model, and the participants were divided into three risk groups. Participants with a risk score <5 (28% of the cohort), 5-10 (45% of the cohort), and >10 (27% of the cohort) had a cumulative incidence of having a positive herpes virus PCR test at 5.8%, 25%, and 73%, respectively (p < 0.001) Conclusion: In conclusion, the incidence of positive herpes virus PCR tests was high, and a risk model including immune function allowed the prediction of positive herpes virus PCR and may be used to identify recipients at higher risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Side effects to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are a key concern contributing to vaccine hesitancy, but more individuals may be encouraged if SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were known to lead to a stronger immune response., Methods: Included were adult participants from the Danish National Cohort Study of Effectiveness and Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines (ENFORCE) who completed a questionnaire to assess systemic reactions following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (BTN162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1) and had SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels measured at baseline and post-vaccine. A symptom score was developed to measure severity of systemic adverse reactions (+1 for each moderate, +2 for each severe). Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG levels were compared between participants with different scores using multivariable linear regression., Results: A total of 6528 participants were included (56.3% females; median age [interquartile range], 64 [54-75] years). After the first vaccination, no association was found between symptom score and post-vaccine dose spike IgG level ( P = .575). Following the second vaccination, significantly higher spike IgG levels were observed according to higher symptom scores ( P < .001); adjusted geometric mean ratios were 1.16 (95% CI, 1.04-1.30), 1.24 (95% CI, 1.09-1.41), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.06-1.46), and 1.21 (95% CI, 1.08-1.35), for scores of 2, 3, 4, and ≥5, respectively, compared with a score of 0. After adjustment for pre-vaccine dose spike IgG, this association was attenuated., Conclusions: An association was found between more severe adverse reactions and stronger antibody response after the second vaccination but not the first, likely attributed to higher levels of preexisting immunity gained from response to first vaccination. Regardless of side effects, most people experienced an effective immune response following vaccination., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. N.B.S. declares having served as primary investigator on clinical studies sponsored by Pfizer and Bavarian Nordic. T.B. declares receipt of unrestricted research or travel grants from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, and MSD; being principal investigator on trials conducted by Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Novartis, Kancera, Pfizer, MSD, and Gilead; being a board member for Pentabase; and being an advisory board member for MSD, Gilead, Pfizer, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; receipt of consulting fees from GSK and Pfizer; receipt of a donation of study drug from Eli Lilly; and receipt of honoraria for lectures from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)