Limited availability of methods for the detection of xenotransplantation‐relevant viruses in veterinary laboratories

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe German Xenotransplantation Consortium is in the process to prepare a clinical trial application (CTA) on xenotransplantation of genetically modified pig hearts. In the CTA documents to the central and national regulatory authorities, that is, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), respectively, it is required to list the potential zoonotic or xenozoonotic porcine microorganisms including porcine viruses as well as to describe methods of detection in order to prevent their transmission. The donor animals should be tested using highly sensitive detection systems. I would like to define a detection system as the complex including the actual detection methods, either PCR‐based, cell‐based, or immunological methods and their sensitivity, as well as sample generation, sample preparation, sample origin, time of sampling, and the necessary negative and positive controls. Lessons learned from the identification of porcine cytomegalovirus/porcine roseolovirus (PCMV/PRV) in the xenotransplanted heart in the recipient in the Baltimore study underline how important such systems are. The question is whether veterinary laboratories can supply such assays.MethodsA total of 35 veterinary laboratories in Germany were surveyed for their ability to test for selected xenotransplantation‐relevant viruses, including PCMV/PRV, hepatitis E virus, and porcine endogenous retrovirus‐C (PERV‐C). As comparison, data from Swiss laboratories and a laboratory in the USA were analyzed. Furthermore, we assessed which viruses were screened for in clinical and preclinical trials performed until now and during screening of pig populations.ResultsOf the nine laboratories that provided viral diagnostics, none of these included all potential viruses of concern, indeed, the most important assays confirmed in recent human trials, antibody detection of PCMV/PRV and screening for PERV‐C were not available at all. The situation was similar in Swiss and US laboratories. Different viruses have been tested for in first clinical and preclinical trials performed in various countries.ConclusionBased on these results it is necessary to establish special virological laboratories able to test for all xenotransplantation‐relevant viruses using validated assays, optimally in the xenotransplantation centers.