Incidence of HHV7 in donors and recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

P. Hubáček,P. Sedláček,P. Keslová,R. Formánková,J. Starý,M. Kulich,O. Cinek
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.21436
2008-04-01
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Abstract:To the Editor: We read with the great interest the article of by Khanani et al. [1] and were surprised with the extremely low incidence of detected Human Herpesvirus 7 (HHV7) in paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, which is not in agreement with our experience. The incidence in the allogeneic setting was 5.5% (9/163) with the median of detection 21 days after HSCT. It would have been interesting to see the total number of tested samples in different categories (blood, plasma, other body fluids, tissue) and the separation of that cohort concerning patients on ganciclovir (GCV) prophylaxis as possible explanation for the low HHV7 incidence. In the article and in the reference about the PCR methods [2] we were not able to find the sensitivity of theHHV7 assay. The lower incidencemay be then also explained by the lower sensitivity of assay. In our institution,we have testedHHV7 in similar clinical setting with the exception of GCV prophylaxis. All patients received acyclovir prophylaxis, while GCV was used to treat CMV preemptively based on the results of weekly PCR monitoring. Viral detection is based on DNA extraction fromwhole blood. The results are normalized to 10,000 human genome equivalents quantified using the albumin gene. The sensitivity of both the HHV7 and albumin gene detection are down to 5 copies per reaction. Up to May 2007, we tested for HHV7 2,546 blood samples obtained from125 patients transplanted between February 2000 and May 2006 (median age at HSCT 9.13 years). Two hundred seventyeight samples from 56 patients (44.8%) contained more than 1 normalized viral copy (NVC), more than 10 NVCs contained samples from 26 patients (20.8%) and more than 100 NVCs were detected in only 5 patients (0.04%). In 72 patients from our cohort, we found no impact of viral reactivation on clinical features (e.g., presence of fever, pneumonia, thrombocytopenia). With regard to the predictors of the reactivation of HHV7 at level 10 NVCs, we have found that a higher dose of CD34þ cells in the graft and use of busulfan increased the probability for HHV7 detection during posttransplant surveillance. HSCT with related donor compared to unrelated resulted in a 4.5-fold increase in risk of HHV7 reactivation. Compared to Khanani et al. [1], we found a positive association of HHV7 and HHV6 detection while there was no relation between HHV7 and CMVand EBV. Interestingly, we were able to detect HHV7 DNA in 9 unrelated and 5 related donors out of 30 donors tested (21 unrelated and 9 related donors) and observed no clinical consequence for the recipient. The quantity of HHV7 DNA in these cases was below 100 NVCs (median 7.5, range 0.6–88). Because the graft for HSCT is obtained in donors without any clinical sign of infection, we suggest this level as a non-clinically important in term of latent HHV7, at least for immunocompetent host. Compared to Khanani et al., higher incidence observed in our cohort is similar to other publishedworks [3,4] andmay be caused by the higher sensitivity of our PCR assay.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?