# Should Systematic HSV Serological Screening of Donors Be Implemented to Manage Mismatched HSV D+/R–Liver Transplants?

J Besombes, V. Thibault, Astrid Bacle, Céline Bressollette-Bodin, Christophe

Camus, Baptiste Giguet, Pauline Houssel-debry, Charlotte Pronier

► To cite this version:

J Besombes, V. Thibault, Astrid Bacle, Céline Bressollette-Bodin, Christophe Camus, et al. Should Systematic HSV Serological Screening of Donors Be Implemented to Manage Mismatched HSV D+/R–Liver Transplants?. Transplant International, 2025, 38, pp.14835. 10.3389/ti.2025.14835. hal-05236252v2

HAL Id: hal-05236252

https://hal.science/hal-05236252v2

Submitted on 2 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Should Systematic HSV Serological Screening of Donors Be Implemented to Manage Mismatched HSV D+/R- Liver Transplants?

J. Besombes<sup>1,2*</sup>, V. Thibault<sup>1,2</sup>, A. Bacle<sup>2,3</sup>, C. Bressollette-Bodin<sup>4,5†</sup>, C. Camus<sup>6</sup>, B. Giguet<sup>7</sup>, P. Houssel-Debry<sup>7</sup> and C. Pronier<sup>1,2</sup>

**Keywords:** liver transplant, donor screening, herpes simplex virus, prophylaxis, Immunosuppression

Dear Editors,

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at high risk of infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in the early post-transplant period. Although guidelines for cytomegalovirus (CMV) are well-established, herpes simplex virus (HSV) recommendations are less clear and vary among countries. CMV risk management strategy for SOT recipients depends on the serological status of the donor (D) and the recipient (R). In liver transplantation, mismatched CMV-D+/R- or R+ patients may receive valganciclovir prophylaxis which is typically shorter for R+. Alternatively, they may undergo a preemptive approach based on regular CMV PCR monitoring [1-4]. Current guidelines HSV-specific prophylaxis (acyclovir or valacyclovir) primarily target HSV-R+ patients without prophylaxis for CMV and some of them propose to also consider HSV-D+/R- patients (Supplementary Material S1) [1-3, 5-8]. Transmission may occur through close contact or be donor-derived and can lead to moderate or severe infections, particularly in immunocompromised patients. However, while screening for several viral infections is routinely performed in donors, HSV serology is not consistently included—often due to the presumed high seroprevalence. This letter aims to highlight this paradox, which hinders the optimal management of patients following the transplantation. To illustrate, we describe our 2023 liver transplant (LT) cohort—from the second largest center nationally—based on CMV and HSV serological status and discuss the management of two mismatched HSV-D+/R- cases.

In 2023, our center performed 122 LT, with recipients averaging 55.3 ± 12.1 years of age, the majority of whom were men (83/122; 68.0%). HSV1/2 IgG testing (Liaison® XL HSV-1/2 IgG, DiaSorin), is included in recipient screening prior to transplantation, without distinction between anti-HSV-1 and HSV-2 IgG. Among the 122 LT recipients tested, 77.0% (94/122) were positive, 19.7% (24/122) negative, and 3.3% were uncertain (4/122) as signals were near the assay's detection threshold (Table 1A). Regarding CMV IgG status, 39.3% (48/122) of patients were positive and 60.7% (74/122) negative (Table 1A). HSV-R+ patients benefit from a clinical monitoring regardless of CMV prophylaxis. Among HSV-seronegative or uncertain status recipients, 21.4% (6/28) were CMV-D±/R+, 39.3% (11/28) CMV-D-/R- and 39.3% (11/28) CMV-D+/R- (Table 1B). Mismatched CMV-D+/R-patients received valganciclovir prophylaxis (450-mg twice daily if normal renal function) for 3 months, which may be effective in preventing HSV infection. No specific HSV virological follow-up was planned. Patients with CMV-R+ status benefit from a preemptive approach and CMV-D-/R-patients only benefit from a clinical follow-up. In all cases, there is no HSV systematic monitoring. Notably, 60.7% (17/28) of HSV-R- did not receive any antiviral prophylaxis or

OPEN ACCESS

*Correspondence

J. Besombes,

juliette.besombes@univ-rennes.fr

†ORCID:

C. Bressollette-Bodin
orcid.org/0000-0001-5175-0790

Received: 29 April 2025

Accepted: 07 July 2025

Published: 21 July 2025

**Citation:**
Besombes J, Thibault V, Bacle A, Bressollette-Bodin C, Camus C, Giguet B, Houssel-Debry P and Pronier C (2025) *Should Systematic HSV Serological Screening of Donors Be Implemented to Manage Mismatched HSV D+/R- Liver Transplants?*
*Transpl. Int.* **38**:14835
doi: 10.3389/ti.2025.14835

<footnote n="1"><sup>1</sup>Virology Department, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France, <sup>2</sup>Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irse (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France, <sup>3</sup>Pôle Pharmacie, Service Hospitalo-Universitaire de Pharmacie, Centre hospitalo-universitaire de Rennes, Rennes, France, <sup>4</sup>Nantes Université, Centre Hospitalo-universitaire de Nantes, Service de virologie, Nantes, France, <sup>5</sup>Nantes Université, Center for Research in Transplantation and Translational Immunology, UMR 1064, Nantes, France, <sup>6</sup>Rennes University Hospital, Intensive care unit, Rennes, France, <sup>7</sup>Liver Disease Department, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France</footnote>
<table><caption>**TABLE1** | Serological status for Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in patients undergoing liver transplantation in the year 2023 in a French center. Data extracted from laboratory information system. Serologies performed on the Liaison XL, DiaSorin®.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">A</th><th colspan="2">anti-HSV 1/2 IgG</th><th colspan="2">anti-CMV IgG</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total</td><td>122</td><td>-</td><td>122</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Positive</td><td>94</td><td>77.0</td><td>48</td><td>39.3</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>24</td><td>19.7</td><td>74</td><td>60.7</td></tr><tr><td>Uncertain</td><td>4</td><td>3.3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">B</th><th colspan="4">HSV negative or uncertain serostatus (n = 28)</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>Recipient management</th><th>Protection against HSV</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CMV R+</td><td>6</td><td>21.4</td><td>CMV virological monitoring with preemptive treatment</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>CMV D-/R-</td><td>11</td><td>39.3</td><td>No special follow-up (CMV PCR if clinical signs)</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>CMV D+/R-</td><td>11</td><td>39.3</td><td>Prophylaxis by valganciclovir during 3 months</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

A. Anti-HSV IgG (with no distinction between HSV-1 and 2) and anti-CMV IgG status of the 122 liver transplants patients. B. Anti-CMV IgG donor-recipient status in HSV-seronegative patients and management recipient in the centre. R, recipient; D, donor; uncertain, ratio around the technique's detection threshold.

specific follow-up to prevent a possible primary HSV infection that could eventually be transmitted by the donor or close contact (Table 1B). In our cohort, knowledge of the HSV donor status could have been relevant for at least 14% (17/122) of the recipients but clinicians requested HSV serology for only two cases. In the first case, a 67-year-old male recipient was HSV seronegative, prompting the clinician to request HSV serology. The donor was HSV seropositive. The patient ultimately received valganciclovir prophylaxis due to a CMV D+/R- status. In contrast, the second case, a 43-year-old female did not receive any prophylaxis because she was CMV-D-/R- (Supplementary Material S2). She developed primary HSV-1 infection 27 days post-transplantation (DPT) and presented with acute hepatitis and gingivostomatitis. Retrospective HSV nucleic acid test (NAT) revealed that active HSV infection began very early (6 DPT). After two negative plasma HSV NAT results during acyclovir treatment and clinical improvement, a secondary prophylaxis with valacyclovir was continued for 1 month. After the diagnosis of HSV infection in the recipient, retrospective testing of the donor confirmed HSV-seropositivity. HSV DNA was also detected in the donor's respiratory and blood (<107 copies/mL; ct = 35; HSV-1 HSV-2 R-GENE®) samples, potentially contributing to early transmission and infection in the recipient. This case highlights the potential benefit of systematic HSV donor screening to guide early post-transplant management.

Guidelines for HSV prophylaxis in SOT recipients generally recommend prophylaxis for HSV-R+ based on CMV status. Although prophylaxis reduces the risk of HSV reactivation, the lack of data on HSV-related morbidity in HSV-R+ limits our ability to fully assess the disease burden underlying this recommendation [9]. American Society of Transplantation

recommends HSV-specific prophylaxis for at least 1 month in HSV-R+ without CMV prophylaxis and suggest it only at the clinician's discretion for R-patients, without specifying a duration [1]. Recent European guidelines recommend HSV prophylaxis (e.g., valacyclovir) for D+/R- recipients without CMV prophylaxis. If the donor's status is unknown and the recipient is seronegative, management should follow the D+/R- approach [3]. This is consistent with the proposals by Arana et al. in 2022 [5]. Although HSV donor serology may be useful for diagnostic purposes, there are currently no guidelines recommending universal HSV screening in donors. Only the Swiss Transplant Infectious Diseases working group modified its national recommendations and proposed pretransplant HSV serostatus determination in liver recipients and donors to guide HSV prophylaxis in HSV-D+/R- mismatches [6]. Indeed, HSV serologic testing in donors is generally not recommended based on the known globally high HSV seroprevalence. Nonetheless in Northern countries, fewer than 60% and 20% of people under the age of 50 are infected with HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively [10–12]. Besides, HSV-1/2 seroprevalence is decreasing by 1% per year, particularly among young people in Europe and the United States [1, 10, 11]. In 2023, about 1 in 5 LT recipients were HSV-seronegative in our center, a proportion expected to rise. As donor age increases, young organ recipients may face a higher risk of contracting HSV from HSV-D+. Despite the constantly evolving landscape of infectious disease screening, the lack of recommendations for HSV screening in donors highlights inconsistencies in HSV prevention.

HSV infection in SOT recipients should not be overlooked, especially given the decreasing HSV seroprevalence. Based on our experience and in line with the recent recommendations from the European council and Switzerland, we advocate routine HSV serological testing of donors to guide early post-transplant management, especially in HSV-D+/R-mismatched patients. In absence of CMV prophylaxis (Valganciclovir), HSV-specific prophylaxis (e.g., Valacyclovir) should be initiated for at least 1 month (Supplementary Material S3). Upon detection of CMV DNAemia during follow-up, valacyclovir can be stopped when valganciclovir is initiated. While universal prophylaxis for seronegative recipients without known donor status is recommended in some centers, including in European and Australian guidelines, we prefer a more individualized approach to limit patient exposure to multiple pharmacological agents [2]. Further studies are needed to determine whether a systematic approach to HSV donor screening, universal prophylaxis or a preemptive approach (weekly HSV PCR monitoring, similar to CMV protocols), would be the most cost-effective and clinically appropriate strategy for early post-transplant care. Given HSV's tropism for certain grafts—particularly the liver—and the potential severity of primary infection, prevention should remain a priority. This is especially important as CMV prophylaxis duration may be shortened in the future based on CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI) results, which must not distract from the risk of HSV infection. Since novel CMV antivirals like letermovir—currently recommended for
kidney transplant prophylaxis and expected to be approved for other organs—do not cover HSV, ensuring adequate HSV-specific prophylaxis remains essential to prevent HSV infection [4]. Lastly, behavioral counseling should be provided to reduce the risk of transmission in all HSV-seronegative recipients.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

## ETHICS STATEMENT

The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Committee of the Rennes University Hospital. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors participated in the interpretation of the studies and review of the manuscript; CP conceptualized the design, JB

## REFERENCES

1. Lee DH, Zuckerman RA, AST Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Herpes Simplex Virus Infections in Solid Organ Transplantation: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. *Clin Transpl* (2019) 33(9):e13526. doi:10.1111/ctr.13526

2. The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand. Clinical Guidelines for Organ Transplantation from Deceased Donors (2023). Available online at: https://tsanz.com.au/clinical-guidelines-menu?p=14 (Accessed March 24, 2024).

3. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare of the Council of Europe (EDQM). *Guide to the Quality and Safety of Organs for Transplantation*. 9th ed. EDQM (2025). Available online at: https://freepub. edqm.eu/publications/PUBSD-197/detail.

4. Kotton CN, Kumar D, Manuel O, Chou S, Hayden RT, Danziger-Isakov L, et al. The Fourth International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation. *Transplantation* (2025) 109(7):1066-110. doi:10.1097/TP.00000000000005374

5. Arana C, Cofan F, Ruiz P, Hermida E, Fernández J, Colmenero J, et al. Primary Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection with Acute Liver Failure in Solid Organ Transplantation: Report of Three Cases and Review. *IDCases* (2022) 28: e01485. doi:10.1016/j.idcr.2022.e01485

6. Reinhold I, Teasca L, Rodriguez ER, Berney T, Mueller NJ, Hilty M, et al. Donor-derived Fulminant Herpes Simplex Virus Hepatitis after Liver Transplantation: Two Cases and Review of Literature. *Transpl Infect Dis* (2023) 25(4):e14080. doi:10.1111/tid.14080

7. Len O, Los-Arcos I, Aguado JM, Blanes M, Bodro M, Carratalà J, et al. Selection Criteria of Solid Organ Donors in Relation to Infectious Diseases: A Spanish Consensus. *Transpl Rev* (2020) 34(2):100528. doi:10.1016/j.trre.2020.100528

collected data and wrote the manuscript, PH-D, CC, and BG were in charge of the patients. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

## FUNDING

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## GENERATIVE AI STATEMENT

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

## SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2025.14835/full#supplementary-material

8. Bansal SB, Ramasubramanian V, Prasad N, Saraf N, Soman R, Makharia G, et al. South Asian Transplant Infectious Disease Guidelines for Solid Organ Transplant Candidates, Recipients, and Donors. *Transplantation* (2023) 107(9):1910-34. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000004521

9. Martin-Gandul C, Stampf S, Héquet D, Mueller NJ, Cusini A, van Delden C, et al. Preventive Strategies against Cytomegalovirus and Incidence of α-Herpesvirus Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Nationwide Cohort Study. *Am J Transpl* (2017) 17(7):1813-22. doi:10.1111/ajt.14192

10. Yousuf W, Ibrahim H, Harfouche M, Abu Hijleh F, Abu-Raddad L. Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 in Europe: Systematic Review, Meta-Analyses and Meta-Regressions. *BMJ Glob Health* (2020) 5(7):e002388. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002388

11. Alareeki A, Osman AMM, Khandakji MN, Looker KJ, Harfouche M, Abu-Raddad LJ. Epidemiology of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 in Europe: Systematic Review, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Regressions. *Lancet Reg Health - Eur* (2023) 25:100558. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100558

12. AlMukdad S, Farooqui US, Harfouche M, Aldos L, Abu-Raddad LJ. Epidemiology of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: Systematic Review, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Regressions. *Sex Transm Dis* (2022) 49(6):403-13. doi:10.1097/OLQ.00000000000001612

Copyright © 2025 Besombes, Thibault, Bacle, Bressollette-Bodin, Camus, Giguet, Houssel-Debry and Pronier. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.