Skip to main content
Download PDF

Diagnostic stewardship to limit repeat plasma cytomegalovirus viral load testing

BMC Infectious Diseases volume 23, Article number: 387 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Frequent serial monitoring of plasma cytomegalovirus (CMV) viral load caused unnecessary budgets for laboratory testing without changes in treatment. We aimed to implement diagnostic stewardship to limit CMV viral load testing at appropriate intervals.

Methods

A quasi-experimental study was performed. To avoid unnecessary plasma CMV viral load testing, the inpatient electronic pop-up reminder was launched in 2021. In cases with plasma CMV viral load testing was ordered in intervals of less than five days, telephone interview and feedback were performed. Pre-post intervention data was compared in terms of clinical and monetary outcomes. The rate of plasma CMV viral load testing performed in intervals of less than five days was compared between 2021 and 2019 using the Poisson regression model.

Results

After the protocol implementation, there was a significant decrease in the rate of plasma CMV viral load test orders in intervals of less than five days from 17.5% to 8.0% [incidence rate ratio 0.40, p < 0.001]. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of CMV DNAemia and CMV disease (p = 0.407 and 0.602, respectively). As a result, the hospital could save the costs of plasma CMV viral load testing per 1,000 patients performed with intervals of less than five days from 2,646,048.11 to 1,360,062.89 Thai Baht.

Conclusions

The diagnostic stewardship program is safe and helpful in reducing unnecessary plasma CMV viral load testing and costs.

Key points

Frequent serial plasma CMV viral load testing leads to unnecessary costs and laboratory workload. Diagnostic stewardship to limit repeat CMV viral load tests can reduce unnecessary testing without increasing the incidence of CMV DNAemia and CMV disease.

Peer Review reports

Background

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common infections in immunocompromised patients, including solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients [1], hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients [2], patients with autoimmune diseases who require high-dose immunosuppressive agents [3], patients with hematologic malignancy [4], and critically ill patients [5]. In these patients, CMV infection significantly increases mortality [6,7,8], graft rejection [6], and the flare-up of pre-existing autoimmune diseases.

According to current clinical practice guidelines, the detection of CMV DNA by quantitative nucleic acid amplification, called CMV viral load, is considered a standard method for detecting CMV replication in clinical specimens [9]. CMV viral load is a useful marker to predict CMV DNAemia, CMV disease, progression of CMV disease and resolution of symptoms in SOT recipients [10]. The optimal intervals for plasma CMV viral load monitoring are five to seven days [11]. Currently, five commercial CMV quantitative molecular assays are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [12]. Two assays [COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA) and Abbott RealTime CMV assay (Abbott, Des Plaines, IL, USA)] are available at our hospital.

Currently, serial monitoring of plasma CMV viral load at intervals of less than five days and using different assays for plasma CMV viral load monitoring have been observed in our hospital, as there have been no restrictions on test requests. Frequent requests might cause unnecessary workloads for technicians, as well as unnecessary budgets for laboratory testing. Using different assays might result in wide variability in viral load values. The 1st WHO International Standard for Human CMV for nucleic acid amplification was developed to reduce inter-assay variability [13]. Although a previous study showed that plasma CMV viral load had a good concordance between the Abbott RealTime CMV assay and Roche Cobas Amplicor CMV Monitor Test [14], clinically acceptable limits of result harmonization for CMV viral load measurement in plasma among the assays are still not achieved [15]. Another issue that possibly complicates the interpretation of CMV viral load results includes the specimen type used e.g., whole blood or plasma [11]. However, our hospital laboratory only accepts plasma specimens for CMV viral load testing. This reduces the complexity of CMV viral load results interpretation.

In previous studies, diagnostic stewardship can help physicians use diagnostic tests, such as Clostridioides difficile and multiplex molecular panels appropriately [16,17,18,19]. However, no previous study has performed diagnostic stewardship of plasma CMV viral load testing. In this study, we aimed to implement diagnostic stewardship to limit CMV viral load testing. The primary outcome of the protocol implementation was a decrease in numbers of patients undergoing plasma CMV viral load testing at intervals of less than five days after protocol implementation without increasing incidences of CMV DNAemia, CMV syndrome, and CMV diseases. The secondary outcomes included cost reduction of plasma CMV viral load testing after protocol implementation in hospital perspective.

Methods

We conducted a single-center quasi-experimental study at Ramathibodi Hospital (a 1,300-bed university hospital in Bangkok, Thailand). The study was divided into three periods. Before protocol implementation, we conducted a retrospective study from January to December 2019, when there were no restrictions on CMV viral load test ordering. We reviewed plasma CMV viral load testing performed in intervals of less than five days or using different assays for serial monitoring. In 2020, we developed a diagnostic stewardship protocol for plasma CMV viral load testing. The diagnostic stewardship protocol development included the insertion of a pop-up reminder of an appropriate interval and test for CMV viral load monitoring in the inpatient computerized provider order entry (CPOE), the notification system to the investigator, and feedback delivering. After the protocol implementation, we conducted a prospective cohort study between January and December 2021. Data were collected from patients aged more than 18 years old who were admitted and required repeat plasma CMV viral load testing. Since there were some patients aged more than 18 years old under the care of the pediatric department, these patients were excluded from the study. The patients who required plasma CMV viral load testing only once during the study period were not included. CMV DNAemia is defined as the detection of CMV DNA in plasma above a lower limit of detection of the assay [20]. CMV syndrome and disease were defined according to American Society of Transplantation guidelines [21]. The decision to order CMV viral load testing and to start treatment of CMV DNAemia with anti-CMV agent depended on primary or infectious disease physicians’ opinions.

Interventions

In 2020, we developed a protocol for plasma CMV viral load monitoring stewardship, which involves the frequency of testing and a commercial assay ordered for each patient. The protocol for CMV viral load monitoring was provided to physicians who might have been concerned before the protocol implementation. After protocol implementation, when a physician ordered CMV viral load testing via the inpatient CPOE, there would be a pop-up reminder displaying the information about CMV viral load testing protocol in the Thai language, which is translated as “CMV Viral Load by Cobas Taqman (EDTA-blood); please review the previous CMV viral load assay before ordering (should be the same assay as the previous order). This test should be performed at intervals of approximately one week. If you need to order the test in intervals of less than one week, please consult an infectious disease physician”. When plasma CMV viral load testing was ordered in intervals of less than five days or using different assays for serial monitoring, the information about plasma CMV viral load testing and ordering physicians were sent from the Virology Laboratory to the investigator (A.T.) every morning. The investigator then interviewed ordering physicians about the reason for plasma CMV viral load testing and gave feedback on proper plasma CMV viral load testing to improve ordering in the future. The request was considered intentional or unintentional when the investigator interviewed about the reason for CMV viral load monitoring in intervals of less than five days with the physician. The request was considered intentional if CMV viral load monitoring in intervals of less than five days was sent for specific reasons by the physician. The request was considered unintentional if CMV viral load monitoring in intervals of less than five days was ordered by physicians unaware of the existing previous CMV viral load testing order in intervals of less than five days. The ordering physician could confirm the order for a specific reason. If the ordering physicians decided to cancel the plasma CMV viral load order after the interview, the order was canceled by the investigator. Informed consent was obtained from the physicians interviewed.

Statistical analysis

The median and interquartile range (IQR) were used for the descriptive statistics. For categorical variables, we used the χ2 or Fisher’s exact test for comparisons between groups. For the comparison of continuous variables, we used a t-test for analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of hospital unit (general ward or intensive care unit) and comorbidities. Patients whose tests were ordered at more than one hospital unit were categorized in the unit during their worst condition.

The Poisson regression model was used for the primary outcome analysis. The analysis compared pre- and post-intervention data. If a plasma CMV viral load was requested in intervals of less than five days after another CMV viral load test, the number of test requests was counted. The incidence of plasma CMV viral load testing requested in intervals of less than five days was calculated from the number of tests requested in intervals of less than five days after another CMV viral load test divided by the total number of the test requests. The reasons for plasma CMV viral load ordering in intervals of less than five days and the use of different assays for monitoring before the feedback were collected.

The total costs of plasma CMV viral load testing, including plasma CMV viral load testing in intervals of less than five days, anti-CMV drugs, and procedures related to plasma CMV viral load testing were retrieved from each patient’s invoice and adjusted value to 2021. The costs that occurred in the calendar years 2019 and 2021 were collected. During the study period, the costs of plasma CMV VL testing by COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test, and by Abbott RealTime CMV assay were 2,500 and 2,400 Thai Baht, respectively. (One United States Dollar equals 35.0 Thai Baht on December 1, 2022). Anti-CMV drugs collected in this study included ganciclovir, valganciclovir, cidofovir, foscarnet and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Statistical significance was set at a P < 0.05. STATA version 17 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analyses.

Results

Baseline characteristics of 609 patients who required repeat plasma CMV viral load testing are shown in Table 1. In 2019, there were 1,764 plasma CMV viral load tests performed in 291 patients. The median (IQR) number of plasma CMV viral load tests was 4 (2–9) times. After protocol implementation, there were 1,674 plasma CMV viral load tests performed in 318 patients in 2021. The median (IQR) number of plasma CMV viral load tests was 3 (2–6) times.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients requiring repeat plasma CMV viral load testing
Full size table

The rate of plasma CMV viral load requested in intervals of less than five days was reduced significantly after the implementation of the pop-up reminder in the inpatient CPOE [from 17.5% to 10.3%; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43–0.62, p < 0.001]. The rate was further reduced after feedback (from 17.5% to 8.0%, IRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33–0.43, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of CMV DNAemia, plasma CMV viral load > 1,000 IU/mL, and CMV disease (p = 0.407, 0.556 and 0.602, respectively) (Table 2). In patients with CMV viral load monitoring in intervals of less than five days, there are four (1.3%) tests in four (1.4%) patients in pre-intervention group and four (3.0%) tests in three (0.9%) patients in post-intervention group that yielded clinically significant results (p = 0.715). In the pre-intervention group, all four tests could help physicians to start anti-CMV drugs earlier. In the post-intervention group, three tests could help physicians to discontinue anti-CMV drugs and one test could help physicians to start anti-CMV drugs earlier.

Table 2 Incidences of plasma CMV viral load testing performed in intervals of less than five days, CMV DNAemia, and CMV diseases
Full size table

Subgroup analysis revealed significant reductions in plasma CMV viral load testing performed in intervals of less than five days in almost all subgroups (Table 3). Plasma CMV viral load testing performed in intervals of less than five days was not decreased in HSCT patients (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79–1.58, p = 0.542). The incidence of CMV DNAemia, plasma CMV viral load > 1,000 IU/mL, and CMV disease did not increase in this group (p = 0.883, 0.966, and 0.900 respectively). The details about CMV DNAemia in SOT recipients, HSCT patients, and patients with autoimmune disease are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1.

Table 3 Subgroup analysis of patients requiring repeat plasma CMV viral load testing
Full size table

In the CPOE, there were 173 requests with intervals of less than five days before the feedback. Of these, 33.5% of the serial testing in intervals of less than five days was due to unintentional requests. Of the intentional requests, 63.5% were for HSCT recipients (Table 4). Plasma CMV viral load testing performed in intervals of less than five days tended to be performed more in recipients with MUD, recipients with GVHD, and recipients using anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (Supplementary Table 1).

Table 4 Reasons for serial monitoring plasma CMV viral load ordered in intervals of less than five days
Full size table

After the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there were 192 plasma CMV viral load requests in 69 moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients. Of these, 17 (8.9%) and six (3.1%) tests were requested in intervals of less than five days before and after the feedback, respectively. The reason for 95.7% of the serial monitoring plasma CMV viral load testing in intervals of less than five days was due to unintentional requests. The details about characteristics of COVID-19 patients were provided in Supplementary Table 2.

Plasma CMV viral load monitoring using different assays after protocol implementation and feedback was reduced but not statistically significant [38 tests (2.2%) in 32 patients in 2019 and 28 tests (1.7%) in 26 patients in 2021; IRR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.414–1.110, p = 0.114]. There were four (0.2%) tests that physicians decided to change from the Abbott RealTime CMV assay to the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test to monitor plasma CMV viral load. There was one (0.06%) test that the author could not contact the physician. There was one (0.06%) test that the physician decided not to change the assay because he/she needed to monitor CMV viral load for the last time. There were two tests (0.1%) in one patient who had intentional laboratory requests to determine the difference between laboratory assays and decide whether to discontinue ganciclovir. The patient was a 58-year-old woman with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome was diagnosed with CMV radiculomyelitis and DNAemia. She had CMV DNAemia when quantified by the Abbott RealTime CMV assay, but not with the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test. However, there were 16 tests (1.0%) in 15 patients that slipped through the diagnostic stewardship process.

The costs per 1,000 patients of total plasma CMV viral load and plasma CMV viral load performed in intervals of less than five days, and anti-CMV drugs were reduced after protocol implementation (15,133,333.33 to 12,804,088.05 Thai Baht, 2,646,048.11 to 1,360,062.89 Thai Baht, and 37,807,832.65 to 19,856,072.01 Thai Baht, respectively) (Table 5). There were 77 patients in the pre-intervention group and 71 patients in the post-intervention group who received anti-CMV drugs (Supplementary Table 3). IVIG was administered for CMV treatment only in the pre-intervention group. There were two (2.6%) patients in the pre-intervention group and four (5.6%) patients in the post-intervention group whom anti-CMV drugs were prescribed beyond the study period (p = 0.430).

Table 5 Costs per 1,000 patients of plasma CMV viral load testing, anti-CMV drugs, bronchoscopy, and gastrointestinal endoscopy
Full size table

Discussion

This study evaluated the impact of diagnostic stewardship on plasma CMV viral load testing. We found that plasma CMV viral load testing in intervals of less than five days was significantly reduced after protocol implementation. The incidence of CMV DNAemia, CMV syndrome, and CMV disease was not altered after the protocol implementation. Moreover, the costs of plasma CMV viral load testing in intervals of less than five days and anti-CMV drugs were also reduced significantly. Our findings on the reduction in laboratory testing and costs were similar to those of previous studies on diagnostic stewardship in C. difficile testing [18, 19, 22, 23].

However, plasma CMV viral load monitoring in intervals of less than five days was not decreased in the HSCT subgroup. The plasma CMV viral load was requested biweekly for some patients. Current guidelines recommend that plasma CMV viral load monitoring be performed at least weekly for the first 100 days after HSCT [24]. Previous studies have proposed an intensive strategy for biweekly monitoring of plasma CMV viral load in seropositive umbilical cord blood transplant recipients [25, 26]. Another study found that alemtuzumab increased the risk of CMV infection by 4.8 times, which may require more intensive plasma CMV viral load monitoring [27]. However, no patients had umbilical cord blood transplant recipients or used alemtuzumab in our hospital. Previous studies have found that HSCT with a CMV-negative donor/CMV-positive recipient, patients with GVHD, and unrelated or mismatched donor serostatus were considered major risk factors for CMV reactivation, CMV disease, and CMV recurrence [28, 29]. However, low-dose ATG in patients undergoing MUD HSCT did not increase the incidence of CMV reactivation or CMV disease [30]. In HSCT recipients that required plasma CMV viral load monitoring in our hospital, we found plasma CMV viral load monitoring in intervals of less than five days was performed in patients with major risk factors for CMV reactivation, CMV disease, and CMV recurrence; however, the number of these patients was too small to detect statistical significance, especially in HSCT recipients with MUD, GVHD, and ATG use. Our study showed that CMV reactivation and CMV disease did not significantly increase in patients with major risk factors; however, the number of events was small. Further studies on CMV monitoring in HSCT recipients and recommendations on the optimal frequencies of CMV viral load monitoring in subgroups of HSCT recipients are needed.

Although there was no clinical practice guidelines recommendation for CMV viral load monitoring other than SOT and HSCT recipients, there was frequent CMV viral load monitoring in autoimmune patients. CMV infection has been reported in patients with autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), especially in Asia [31]. Approximately one-fourth of patients in this study had autoimmune diseases. Previous study in our hospital reported 58% mortality rate in SLE patients with CMV disease during 2005–2012 [32]. CMV infection in critically ill immunocompetent patients was associated with poor outcome. A systematic review that included the studies in which CMV viral load performed at least weekly demonstrated the rate of CMV infection of 32–33% [33]. With increasing reports of CMV infection in diverse populations, algorithms for CMV viral load monitoring in these populations are necessary.

During the protocol development in 2020, COVID-19 pandemic emerged. From April 2021, our hospital has provided care for many patients diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This led to differences in baseline characteristics between the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups. CMV DNAemia [34, 35] and CMV diseases, such as disseminated CMV infection [36], CMV myocarditis [37], CMV pneumonitis [38, 39], and CMV proctitis [40] have been reported in COVID-19 patients. A recent study described antiviral stewardship in SOT recipients with COVID-19 and suggested weekly pre-emptive monitoring of plasma CMV viral load [41]. In our study, most of the plasma CMV viral load was ordered in intervals of less than five days before the feedback was unintentionally, probably due to the surge in the number of patients with severe COVID-19, resulting in excessive workload, making the plasma CMV viral load testing review more laborious. This demonstrates the benefits of diagnostic stewardship. Following this study, the algorithms for CMV viral load testing were developed and implemented in our hospital. The algorithms are provided in Supplementary Fig. 2–4.

The costs of total CMV viral load testing and CMV viral load testing in intervals of less than five days are reduced corresponding to the reduction in rate of the test. We also found reduction in costs of anti-CMV drugs after protocol implementation. This might partly be explained by the expensive anti-CMV drugs (valganciclovir and IVIG) were prescribed in a higher number of patients and longer duration in the pre-intervention period. The protocol implementation did not result in increased costs of bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The strengths of this study included the study comprised a prospective cohort study evaluated the impact of diagnostic stewardship. We also performed telephone interviews after plasma CMV viral load requests, which provided data on the reason for plasma CMV viral load ordered in intervals of less than five days or using different assays. This study has some limitations. First, this was a single-center study; therefore, the results might limit the external validity to other hospitals. Second, the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups had several significant differences, such as increases in critically ill and COVID-19 patients. The comparison between them could lead to potential bias. Third, the protocol for CMV viral load monitoring provided to physicians who might have been concerned before the protocol implementation might also contribute to reduction in CMV viral load monitoring performed in intervals of less than five days. Fourth, this study did not evaluate deaths or adverse events due to anti-CMV drugs or CMV diseases related to restricted plasma CMV viral load testing. Fifth, anti-CMV drug costs occurred after each calendar year were not collected. Finally, only one investigator reviewed the orders, resulting in incomplete diagnostic stewardship as some (37 tests, 2.2%) unintentional plasma CMV viral load tests were performed.

In conclusion, a diagnostic stewardship program is safe and useful for limiting plasma CMV viral load testing at appropriate intervals and reducing unnecessary cost. Therefore, the program should be maintained. An electronic hard-stop alert as part of the CPOE should be developed and studied.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ATG:

Anti-thymocyte globulin

CI:

Confidence interval

CMV:

Cytomegalovirus

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

CPOE:

Computerized provider order entry

GVHD:

Graft-versus-host disease

HSCT:

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant

IgG:

Immunoglobulin G

IQR:

Interquartile range

IRR:

Incidence rate ratio

IVIG:

Intravenous immunoglobulin

MMD:

HLA-mismatched donor

MSD:

HLA-matched sibling donor

MUD:

HLA-matched unrelated donor

SLE:

Systemic lupus erythematosus

SOT:

Solid organ transplant

References

  1. Lumbreras C, Manuel O, Len O, ten Berge IJM, Sgarabotto D, Hirsch HH. Cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sahin U, Toprak SK, Atilla PA, Atilla E, Demirer T. An overview of infectious complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Infect Chemother. 2016;22:505–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gardiner BJ, Haas EM, Bailey RC, Chow JK, Snydman DR. Reactivation of latent cytomegalovirus infection in patients with rheumatologic disease: a case–control study. Rheumatol Int. 2019;39:1229–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Manna A, Pronzato P, Cordani S, Canessa P. CMV infection and pneumonia in hematological malignancies. J Infect Chemother. 2003;9:265–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schildermans J, De Vlieger G. Cytomegalovirus: a troll in the ICU? Overview of the literature and perspectives for the future. Front Med. 2020;7:188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Linares L, Sanclemente G, Cervera C, Hoyo I, Cofán F, Ricart MJ, et al. Influence of cytomegalovirus disease in outcome of solid organ transplant patients. Transplant Proc. 2011;43:2145–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Teira P, Battiwalla M, Ramanathan M, Barrett AJ, Ahn KW, Chen M, et al. Early cytomegalovirus reactivation remains associated with increased transplant-related mortality in the current era: a CIBMTR analysis. Blood. 2016;127:2427–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan ST, Logan AC. The clinical impact of cytomegalovirus infection following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: why the quest for meaningful prophylaxis still matters. Blood Rev. 2017;31:173–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kotton CN, Kumar D, Caliendo AM, Huprikar S, Chou S, Danziger-Isakov L, et al. The third international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2018;102:900–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Natori Y, Alghamdi A, Tazari M, Miller V, Husain S, Komatsu T, et al. Use of viral load as a surrogate marker in clinical studies of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:617–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kraft CS, Armstrong WS, Caliendo AM. Interpreting quantitative cytomegalovirus DNA testing: understanding the laboratory perspective. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:1793–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Nucleic acid based tests. FDA. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/nucleic-acid-based-tests. Accessed 19 Jul 2022.

  13. Fryer JF, Heath AB, Anderson R, Minor PD, Unit WHOB, Group CS, et al. Collaborative study to evaluate the proposed first WHO international standard for human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) for nucleic acid amplification (NAT)-based assays. World Health Organization; 2010.

  14. Tremblay M-A, Rodrigue M-A, Deschênes L, Boivin G, Longtin J. Cytomegalovirus quantification in plasma with abbott realtime CMV and roche cobas amplicor CMV assays. J Virol Methods. 2015;225:1–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Preiksaitis JK, Hayden RT, Tong Y, Pang XL, Fryer JF, Heath AB, et al. Are we there yet? Impact of the First International Standard for cytomegalovirus DNA on the harmonization of results reported on plasma samples. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Neal M, Murray H, Dash S, Al-Hasan MN, Justo JA, Bookstaver PB. Evaluating appropriateness and diagnostic stewardship opportunities of multiplex polymerase chain reaction gastrointestinal testing within a hospital system. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2020;7:204993612095956.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Broadhurst MJ, Dujari S, Budvytiene I, Pinsky BA, Gold CA, Banaei N. Utilization, yield, and accuracy of the filmarray meningitis/encephalitis panel with diagnostic stewardship and testing algorithm. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58:e00311-e320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Solanky D, Juang DK, Johns ST, Drobish IC, Mehta SR, Kumaraswamy M. Using diagnostic stewardship to reduce rates, healthcare expenditures and accurately identify cases of hospital-onset clostridioides difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42:51–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Howard-Anderson JR, Sexton ME, Robichaux C, Wiley Z, Varkey JB, Suchindran S, et al. The impact of an electronic medical record nudge on reducing testing for hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;41:411–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ljungman P, Griffiths P, Paya C. Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1094–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Humar A, Michaels M, on behalf of the AST ID Working Group on Infectious Disease Monitoring. American Society of Transplantation recommendations for screening, monitoring and reporting of infectious complications in immunosuppression trials in recipients of organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:262–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Madden GR, Sifri CD. Reduced Clostridioides difficile tests among solid organ transplant recipients through a diagnostic stewardship bundled intervention. Ann Transplant. 2019;24:304–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu C, Lan K, Krantz EM, Kim HN, Zier J, Bryson-Cahn C, et al. Improving appropriate diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection through an enteric pathogen order set with computerized clinical decision support: an interrupted time series analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7:ofaa366.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ljungman P, de la Camara R, Robin C, Crocchiolo R, Einsele H, Hill JA, et al. Guidelines for the management of cytomegalovirus infection in patients with haematological malignancies and after stem cell transplantation from the 2017 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 7). Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19:e260-72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Milano F, Pergam SA, Xie H, Leisenring WM, Gutman JA, Riffkin I, et al. Intensive strategy to prevent CMV disease in seropositive umbilical cord blood transplant recipients. Blood. 2011;118:5689–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hill JA, Pergam SA, Cox E, Xie H, Leisenring WM, Boeckh M, et al. A modified intensive strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in seropositive umbilical cord blood transplantation recipients. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:2094–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schmidt-Hieber M, Schwarck S, Stroux A, Ganepola S, Reinke P, Thiel E, et al. Immune reconstitution and cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: the important impact of in vivo T cell depletion. Int J Hematol. 2010;91:877–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dziedzic M, Sadowska-Krawczenko I, Styczynski J. Risk factors for cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in malignancies: proposal for classification. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:6551.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Styczynski J. Who is the patient at risk of CMV Recurrence: a review of the current scientific evidence with a focus on hematopoietic cell transplantation. Infect Dis Ther. 2018;7:1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mountjoy L, Jain T, Kunze KL, Khera N, Sproat LZ, Jennifer W, et al. Clinical outcomes with low dose anti-thymocyte globulin in patients undergoing matched unrelated donor allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020;61:1996–2002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Choo HMC, Cher WQ, Kwan YH, Fong WWS. Risk factors for cytomegalovirus disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): a systematic review. Adv Rheumatol. 2019;59:12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abstract: Risk factors of cytomegalovirus disease among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (IDWeek 2013 poster abstract session). https://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2013/webprogram/Paper40261.html. Accessed 2 Nov 2022.

  33. Osawa R, Singh N. Cytomegalovirus infection in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2009;13:R68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Amundson L, Boelts B, Kataria V, Spak C. Ganciclovir therapy for CMV viremia in a patient on VV ECMO with COVID-19 after treatment with tocilizumab. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2021;29:e191–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Molaei H, Khedmat L, Nemati E, Rostami Z, Saadat SH. Iranian kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection: clinical outcomes and cytomegalovirus coinfection. Transpl Infect Dis. 2021;23:e13455.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gozzi-Silva SC, Benard G, Alberca RW, Yendo TM, Teixeira FME, de Oliveira LM, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and CMV dissemination in transplant recipients as a treatment for Chagas cardiomyopathy: a case report. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2021;6:22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Oualim S, Elouarradi A, Hafid S, Naitelhou A, Sabry M. A misleading CMV myocarditis during the COVID-19 pandemic: case report. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;36:167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Amiya S, Hirata H, Shiroyama T, Adachi Y, Niitsu T, Noda Y, et al. Fatal cytomegalovirus pneumonia in a critically ill patient with COVID-19. Respirol Case Rep. 2021;9:e00801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Shaikh AS, Shaim H, Caravedo MA, Ong KM, Reynoso D. A new viral coinfection: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and cytomegalovirus pneumonitis in a renal transplant recipient. COVID. 2021;1:115–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Maillet F, Pourbaix A, le Pluart D, Sirmai L, Postolache SA, Couvelard A, et al. Cytomegalovirus proctitis as a complication of COVID-19 with immunosuppressive treatments. IDCases. 2021;24:e01111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jorgenson MR, Descourouez JL, Wong C, Strayer JR, Parajuli S, Rice JP, et al. Cytomegalovirus antiviral stewardship in the COVID-19 Era: Increasing complexity of prophylaxis and treatment and potential mitigation strategies. Transpl Infect Dis. 2021;23:e13586.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff of the Virology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, for providing daily data on plasma CMV viral load requests and for the cancellation of plasma CMV viral load testing after feedback.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 270 Rama VI Road, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand

    Akeatit Trirattanapikul & Angsana Phuphuakrat

  2. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Ekawat Pasomsub

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Sukanya Siriyotha & Oraluck Pattanaprateep

Authors
  1. Akeatit Trirattanapikul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ekawat Pasomsub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sukanya Siriyotha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oraluck Pattanaprateep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Angsana Phuphuakrat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AT, EP, and AP contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by AT. Statistical analyses were performed by AT, SS, and OP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AT, and AP. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angsana Phuphuakrat.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by Human Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital Mahidol University, approval number MURA 2021/12.

The informed consent was obtained from the interviewed physicians as the decision for test ordering depended on the physician.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Characteristics of plasma CMV viral load monitoring in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients after protocol implementation. Table S2. Characteristics of 69 moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients requiring CMV viral load monitoring. Table S3. The duration of anti-CMV drugs. Supplementary Figures 1. CMV DNAemia in solid organ transplant recipients, hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and patients with autoimmune diseases. Supplementary Figures 2. Guidance for prevention and screening of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients. Supplementary Figures 3. Guidance for prevention and screening of CMV infection in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Supplementary Figures 4. Guidance for prevention and screening of CMV infection in patients with autoimmune diseases.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trirattanapikul, A., Pasomsub, E., Siriyotha, S. et al. Diagnostic stewardship to limit repeat plasma cytomegalovirus viral load testing. BMC Infect Dis 23, 387 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08355-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08355-0

Keywords

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us