Preemptive ganciclovir therapy in cytomegalovirus-seropositive renal transplants recipients

Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and death in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006 and updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of pre-emptive treatment of CMV viraemia to prevent CMV disease and death (any cause) and the indirect effects of CMV infection (acute rejection, graft loss, opportunistic infections) in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 17 December 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing pre-emptive treatment with placebo, no specific treatment, or antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted all data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed per outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we have included seven new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 22 (1883 participants). Of these, seven investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or standard care, 12 looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, one study investigated oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment, one investigated pre-emptive valganciclovir versus pre-emptive ganciclovir, and one investigated letermovir 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, South Korea, and the USA. Organ transplant recipients included kidney, liver, heart, lung, and kidney-pancreas. Thirteen studies were single-centre studies, six were multicentre, and three were unknown. The number of participants ranged from 12 to 296. Overall, selection bias was unclear (55%); performance, detection and attrition bias were high (91%, 63% and 95%, respectively), and reporting bias was low (55%). Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease (7 studies, 315 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; I2 = 54%; moderate-certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference in death (any cause) (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may result in little or no difference in CMV organ involvement, CMV-associated symptoms, acute rejection, graft loss, other infections or leucopenia. Compared to prophylaxis, pre-emptive treatment may make little or no difference to the risk of developing CMV disease (11 studies, 1322 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.01; I2 = 54%; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little or no difference to death (any cause) (9 studies, 1098 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may increase the risk of CMV infection (8 studies, 867 participants: RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.61; I2 = 66%; low-certainty evidence). The risk of leucopenia (7 studies, 869 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence) and neutropenia (5 studies, 859 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0% moderate certainty evidence) probably decreases with pre-emptive therapy. There may be little or no difference in the risks of acute rejection, graft loss, and infections other than CMV. Single studies were identified for comparisons between different pre-emptive treatments: 1) oral ganciclovir versus IV ganciclovir; 2) valganciclovir versus ganciclovir; 3) 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. No differences between these treatment modalities in terms of CMV disease, death (any cause), or adverse events were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we have included seven new studies, yet the available evidence is overall of low certainty and the conclusions remain similar to the previous version of this review. Pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with placebo or standard care. There were no clear differences between pre-emptive treatment and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease or reduce the risk of death (any cause). The risk of CMV infection may be higher for patients receiving pre-emptive therapy, but the risk of adverse events, such as leucopenia, is probably lower.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause death in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.

Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Guidelines by the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society for Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic viral pathogen in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The Korean guideline for the prevention of CMV infection in SOT recipients was developed jointly by the Korean Society for Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society of Transplantation. CMV serostatus of both donors and recipients should be screened before transplantation to best assess the risk of CMV infection after SOT. Seronegative recipients receiving organs from seropositive donors face the highest risk, followed by seropositive recipients. Either antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy can be used to prevent CMV infection. While both strategies have been demonstrated to prevent CMV infection post-transplant, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. CMV serostatus, transplant organ, other risk factors, and practical issues should be considered for the selection of preventive measures. There is no universal viral load threshold to guide treatment in preemptive therapy. Each institution should define and validate its own threshold. Valganciclovir is the favored agent for both prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. The evaluation of CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity and the monitoring of viral load kinetics are gaining interest, but there was insufficient evidence to issue recommendations. Specific considerations on pediatric transplant recipients are included.

Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of −20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −36.09% to −4.98%), −19.3% (95% CI = −32.7% to −5.93%), and −10.4% (95% CI = −19.7% to −0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.

Efficacy and safety of conventional antiviral agents in preventive strategies for cytomegalovirus infection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in kidney transplantation (KT). Antiviral-agents are used as universal prophylaxis. Our purpose aimed to compare and rank efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL were used from inception to September 2020 regardless language restriction. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the CMV infection/disease prophylaxis among antiviral-agents in adult KT recipients. Of 24 eligible RCTs, prophylactic valganciclovir (VGC) could significantly lower the overall CMV infection and disease risks than placebo with pooled risk differences (RDs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of -0.36 (-0.54, -0.18) and -0.28 (-0.48, -0.08), respectively. Valacyclovir (VAC) and ganciclovir (GC) significantly decreased risks with the corresponding RDs of -0.25 (-0.32, -0.19) and -0.30 (-0.37, -0.22) for CMV infection and -0.26 (-0.40, -0.12) and -0.22 (-0.31, -0.12) for CMV disease. For subgroup analysis by seropositive-donor and seronegative-recipient (D+/R-), VGC and GC significantly lowered the risk of CMV infection/disease with RDs of -0.42 (-0.84, -0.01) and -0.35 (-0.60, -0.12). For pre-emptive strategies, GC lowered the incidence of CMV disease significantly with pooled RDs of -0.33 (-0.47, -0.19). VGC may be the best in prophylaxis of CMV infection/disease follow by GC. VAC might be an alternative where VGC and GC are not available.

Antiviral treatment approaches for cytomegalovirus prevention in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Various CMV anti-viral (AV) preventive strategies have been utilized in KTRs. We examined efficacy, safety and costs of CMV-AV prevention strategies in KTRs using a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications indexed in MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to November 2018). Thirty RCTs met inclusion criteria with 22 unique AV preventive strategies. Prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower rates of CMV infection/disease (CMVi/d) compared to no prophylaxis (pooled odds ratio, pOR with 95% confidence interval (CI): CMVi: 0.33; 0.19, 0.57; CMVd: 0.27; 0.19; 0.39). Preemptive therapy (PET) had lower rates of CMVd (0.29; 0.11, 0.77), and medical costs compared to no PET. Prophylaxis had significantly lower rates of early CMVi/d, and higher rates of late CMVi and hematological adverse events (leukopenia, 2.93; 1.22, 7.04), and similar overall medical costs compared to PET. Studies involving head-to-head comparison of different prophylaxis approaches showed mixed findings with respect to optimum dose, duration and route of administration on CMV outcomes. Although there was heterogeneity across populations and interventions, both prophylaxis and PET strategies reduced CMVi/d compared to no prophylaxis/PET and had differential safety profile in terms of hematological adverse events. For comprehensiveness we did not limit study inclusion based on date; the wide time-period may have contributed to the heterogeneity in prevention approaches which subsequently made pooling studies a challenge. Despite demonstrated efficacy of prophylaxis/PET, our findings highlight the potential need of a novel intervention with a better safety profile and perhaps improved outcomes.

Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients-Guidelines of the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common opportunistic infections that affect the outcome of solid organ transplantation. This updated guideline from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice provides evidence-based and expert recommendations for screening, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. CMV serology to detect immunoglobulin G remains as the standard method for pretransplant screening of donors and transplant candidates. Antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are the mainstays of CMV prevention. The lack of a widely applicable viral load threshold for diagnosis and preemptive therapy is highlighted, as a result of variability of CMV nucleic acid testing, even in the contemporary era when calibrators are standardized. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir remain as drugs of choice for CMV management. Strategies for managing drug-resistant CMV infection are presented. There is an increasing use of CMV-specific cell-mediated immune assays to stratify the risk of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation, but their role in optimizing CMV prevention and treatment efforts has yet to be demonstrated. Specific issues related to pediatric transplant recipients are discussed.

Indian Antimicrobial Prescription Guidelines in Critically Ill Immunocompromised Patients

How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Sengar M, Chinnaswamy G, Hegde A, Rodrigues C, Soman R, Khilnani GC, Ramasubban S, Desai M, Pandit R, Khasne R, Shetty A, Gilada T, Bhosale S, Kothekar A, Dixit S, Zirpe K, Mehta Y, Pulinilkunnathil JG, Bhagat V, Khan MS, Narkhede AM, Baliga N, Ammapalli S, Bamne S, Turkar S, Bhat KV, Choudhary J, Kumar R, Divatia JV. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine 2019;23(Suppl 1): S64-S96.

Cytomegalovirus and Other β-Herpesviruses

Cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpes virus (HHV)-6, and HHV-7 are ubiquitous β-herpesviruses that can cause opportunistic infection and disease in kidney transplant recipients. Active CMV infection and disease are associated with acute allograft failure and death, and HHV-6 and HHV-7 replication are associated with CMV disease. CMV prevention strategies are used commonly after kidney transplantation, and include prophylaxis with antiviral medications and preemptive treatment upon the detection of asymptomatic viral replication in blood. Both approaches decrease CMV disease and allograft rejection, but CMV prophylaxis is preferred for high-risk patients because it is easy to administer and may be more effective in real-world settings. CMV disease commonly occurs even with current preventive strategies, whereas HHV-6 and HHV-7 diseases are rare. The clinical manifestations of CMV, HHV-6, and HHV-7 are nonspecific, and laboratory confirmation is essential to establishing diagnoses. Although nucleic acid testing has supplanted other diagnostic modalities given its high sensitivity and specificity, histopathologic examination sometimes is necessary to identify disease definitively. Ganciclovir and valganciclovir are the treatments of choice for CMV and HHV-6, and foscarnet can be used to treat HHV-7. Treatment duration should be informed by the initial severity of disease, and subsequent clinical and virologic responses.

Induction Immunosuppression and Clinical Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients Infected With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

There is an increased risk of acute rejection (AR) in human immunodeficiency virus-positive (HIV+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Induction immunosuppression is standard of care for those at high risk of AR; however, use in HIV+ patients is controversial, given fears of increased infection rates. We sought to compare clinical outcomes between HIV+ KT recipients who were treated with (i) anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), (ii) IL-2 receptor blocker, and (iii) no induction. We studied 830 HIV+ KT recipients between 2000 and 2014, as captured in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, and compared rates of delayed graft function (DGF), AR, graft loss and death. Infections and hospitalizations were ascertained by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes in a subset of 308 patients with Medicare. Compared with no induction, neither induction agent was associated with an increased risk of infection (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-1.18). HIV+ recipients who received induction spent fewer days in the hospital (weighted relative risk [wRR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95), had lower rates of DGF (wRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.84), less graft loss (wHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.89) and a trend toward lower mortality (wHR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24-1.28). Those who received induction with ATG had lower rates of AR (wRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.99). Induction in HIV+ KT recipients was not associated with increased infections; in fact, those receiving ATG, the most potent agent, had the lowest rates. In light of the high risk of AR in this population, induction therapy should be strongly considered.

Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcomes of Delayed-onset Cytomegalovirus Disease in a Large Retrospective Cohort of Lung Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) replication and disease commonly occur in lung transplant recipients after stopping anti-CMV prophylaxis. The epidemiology of CMV disease is not well studied, given the difficulties in assembling representative study populations with prolonged follow-up. We hypothesized that delayed-onset CMV disease (>100 days after transplantation) occurs more commonly than early-onset CMV disease in lung transplant recipients, and is associated with an increased risk of death.

METHODS

We assembled a large cohort of lung transplant recipients using 2004 to 2010 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification billing data from 3 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality State Inpatient Databases, and identified demographics, comorbidities, CMV disease coded during hospital readmission and inpatient death. We used Cox proportional hazard multivariate analyses to assess for an independent association between delayed-onset CMV disease and death.

RESULTS

In the cohort of 1528 lung transplant recipients from 12 transplant centers, delayed-onset CMV disease occurred in 13.7% (n = 210) and early-onset CMV disease occurred in 3.3% (n = 51). Delayed-onset CMV pneumonitis was associated with inpatient death longer than 100 days after transplantation (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1-2.5), after adjusting for transplant failure/rejection (aHR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1), bacterial pneumonia (aHR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.0-3.9), viral pneumonia (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), fungal pneumonia (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3), single lung transplant (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (aHR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed-onset CMV disease occurred more commonly than early-onset CMV disease among lung transplant recipients. These results suggest that delayed-onset CMV pneumonitis was independently associated with an increased risk of death.

Delayed-onset cytomegalovirus disease coded during hospital readmission after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Use of prophylactic anti-CMV therapy for 3 to 6 months after kidney transplantation can result in delayed-onset CMV disease. We hypothesized that delayed-onset CMV disease (occurring >100 days posttransplant) occurs more commonly than early-onset CMV disease and that it is associated with death.

METHODS

We assembled a retrospective cohort of 15,848 adult kidney transplant recipients using 2004 to 2010 administrative data from the California and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases. We identified demographic data, comorbidities, CMV disease coded during readmission, and inpatient death. We used multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling to determine risk factors for delayed-onset CMV disease and inpatient death.

RESULTS

Delayed-onset CMV disease was identified in 4.0%, and early-onset CMV disease was identified in 1.2% of the kidney transplant recipients. Risk factors for delayed-onset CMV disease included previous transplant failure or rejection (HR 1.4) and residence in the lowest-income ZIP codes (HR 1.2). Inpatient death was associated with CMV disease occurring 101 to 365 days posttransplant (HR 1.5), CMV disease occurring greater than 365 days posttransplant (HR 2.1), increasing age (by decade: HR 1.5), nonwhite race (HR 1.2), residence in the lowest-income ZIP codes (HR 1.2), transplant failure or rejection (HR 3.2), previous solid organ transplant (HR 1.7), and several comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

These data showed that delayed-onset CMV disease occurred more commonly than early-onset CMV disease and that transplant failure or rejection is a risk factor for delayed-onset CMV disease. Further research should be done to determine if delayed-onset CMV disease is independently associated with death.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in solid-organ transplantation

Solid-organ transplantation has become a widely accepted treatment modality for end-stage diseases. With the advent of newer and more potent immunosuppressive regimens, graft survival has improved, but at the expense of an increased risk for the development of infections secondary to bacterial, fungal, viral and parasitic pathogens. Prevention of such infectious complications with effective, well-tolerated and cost-effective antimicrobials would be ideal to improve the outcome of transplant patients. Cytomegalovirus is the most common cause of viral infections. Herpes simplex virus, Varicella-zoster virus, Epstein-Barr virus and others are also significant pathogens. Fungal infections are associated with the highest mortality rates. This review summarizes the most relevant data pertaining to the current understanding of infection prevention for solid-organ transplant recipients.

Management strategies for cytomegalovirus infection and disease in solid organ transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus is the most common viral pathogen that affects solid organ transplant recipients. It directly causes fever, myelosuppression, and tissue-invasive disease, and indirectly, it negatively impacts allograft and patient survival. Nucleic acid amplification testing is the preferred method to confirm the diagnosis of CMV infection. Prevention of CMV disease using antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy is critical in the management of transplant patients. Intravenous ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir are the first line drugs for antiviral treatment. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library to February 2004 for the first version of this review. The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register was searched to February 2007 and to July 2011 for the first and current updates of the review without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications and comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and by mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted, and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 studies (4342 participants). Risk of bias attributes were poorly performed or reported with low risk of bias reported for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting in 25% or fewer studies.Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 studies; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 studies; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 studies; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss.Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the relative benefit of treatment (risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality) by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs.Neurological dysfunction was more common with ganciclovir and valaciclovir compared with placebo/no treatment. In direct comparison studies, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60) and leucopenia was more common with aciclovir. Valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir. The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir/ganciclovir did not differ from valaciclovir in three small studies. Extended duration prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease compared with three months therapy (2 studies; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35). Leucopenia was more common with extended duration prophylaxis but severe treatment associated adverse effects did not differ between extended and three month durations of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. These data suggest that antiviral prophylaxis should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of pre-emptive treatment with antiviral medications in preventing symptomatic CMV disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 16 January 2013) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pre-emptive treatment compared with placebo, no specific treatment or with antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors assessed the quality and extracted all data. Analyses used a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 eligible studies (1098 participants). Of these, six investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or treatment of CMV when disease occurred (standard care), eight looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, and one reported on oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment.Assessment of risk of bias identified that the processes reported for sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in only five and three studies, respectively. All studies were considered to be at low risk of attrition bias, and seven studies were considered to be at low risk of bias for selective reporting. Only one study reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel; no study reported blinding of outcome assessment.Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease (6 studies, 288 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80) but not acute rejection (3 studies, 185 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.12) or all-cause mortality (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30). Comparative studies of pre-emptive therapy versus prophylaxis showed no significant differences in preventing CMV disease between pre-emptive and prophylactic therapy (7 studies, 753 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.74) but there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 63%). Leucopenia was significantly less common with pre-emptive therapy compared with prophylaxis (6 studies, 729 participants: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90). Other adverse effects did not differ significantly or were not reported. There were no significant differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, graft loss, acute rejection and infections other than CMV.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few RCTs have evaluated the effects of pre-emptive therapy to prevent CMV disease. Pre-emptive therapy is effective compared with placebo or standard care. Despite the inclusion of five additional studies in this update, the efficacy of pre-emptive therapy compared with prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease remains unclear due to significant heterogeneity between studies. Additional head-to-head studies are required to determine the relative benefits and harms of pre-emptive therapy and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

Post-transplant infections: An ounce of prevention

Infections are the leading cause of hospitalization in transplant recipients. The increased risk of new onset diabetes after transplantation, cardiovascular disease, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders adversely affects allograft outcomes. Risk is determined by epidemiologic exposure, immunosuppressive therapy and prophylaxis. The predictable sequence of appearance of infections helps in making management decisions. High likelihood of infections with unusual and multiple organisms necessitates aggressive use of imaging techniques and invasive procedures. Serologic tests depend upon antibody response and are unreliable. Nucleic acid based assays are sensitive, rapid, and allow detection of subclinical infection and assessment of response to therapy. Preventive steps include screening of donors and recipients and vaccination. All indicated vaccines should be administered before transplantation. Inactivated vaccines can be administered after transplantation but produce weak and transient antibody response. Boosters may be required once antibody titers wane. Post-transplant chemoprophylaxis includes cotrimoxazole for preventing urinary tract infections, pneumocystis and Nocardia infections; ganciclovir, valganciclovir, or acyclovir for cytomegalovirus related complications in at-risk recipients; and lamivudine for prevention of progressive liver disease in HBsAg positive recipients. Viral load monitoring and pre-emptive treatment is used for BK virus infection. Infection with new organisms has recently been reported, mostly due to inadvertent transmission via the donor organ.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction. Date of last search: February 2007

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications and comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty four studies (3850 participants) were identified. Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 studies; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 studies; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 studies; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the relative benefit of treatment (risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality) by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs. In direct comparison studies, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). Valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. They should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

Comparison of two commercially available pp65 antigenemia tests and COBAS Amplicor CMV Monitor for early detection and quantification of episodes of human CMV-viremia in transplant recipients

The performance of two commercially available CMV pp65 antigenemia (AG) assays (CINA kit, Argene Biosoft, CK, and CMV Brite kit, IQ Products, CBK), and a quantitative PCR test (COBAS Amplicor CMV Monitor Test, Roche Diagnostics, CACM) was evaluated with 667 blood samples from 215 transplant recipients. The diagnostic value of the three tests was defined by their ability to detect episodes of systemic CMV activity. A test score was defined, assigning 7 virtual units (VU) for any episode detected first, 5 VU for any episode detected second, and three VU for any episode detected last. Within the evaluated collective, the following overall scores could be determined for the three assays: 45 VU for the CK, 39 for CACM and 31 for the CBK assay. We conclude from our results that (1) the CK is superior to the CBK assay in detecting episodes of CMV antigenemia, and (2) quantitative serum CMV PCR with CACM is not generally superior to pp65 antigenemia testing.

Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment with antiviral agents of patients with CMV viraemia has been widely adopted as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease.

OBJECTIVES

This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of pre-emptive treatment in preventing symptomatic CMV disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2005), EMBASE (1980 to February 2005) and reference lists and conference proceedings were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pre-emptive treatment versus placebo, no treatment or antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed the quality and extracted all data. Analysis was with a random-effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten eligible trials (476 patients) were identified, six of pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or treatment of CMV when disease occurred (standard care), three of pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis and one of oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment. Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease (six trials, 288 patients: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80) but not acute rejection (three trials, 185 patient: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) or all-cause mortality (two trials, 176 patients: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30). Comparative trials of pre-emptive therapy versus prophylaxis showed no significant difference in the risks of CMV disease, acute rejection or all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few RCTs have evaluated the effects of pre-emptive therapy to prevent CMV disease. Pre-emptive therapy is effective compared with placebo or standard care, but additional head-to-head trials are required to determine the relative benefits and harms of pre-emptive therapy and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, trials comparing different antiviral medications and trials comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from each trial. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty two trials (3737 participants) were identified. Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 trials; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 trials; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 trials; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (seven trials; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs. In direct comparison trials, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (seven trials; RR 0.37, 95% Cl 0.23 to 0.60). Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. They should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

The impact of early cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal transplant recipients

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection is the single most frequent infectious complication in the early period after kidney transplantation. The HCMV load in blood, measured by HCMV PCR or the HCMV pp65 antigen test, is a predictor of HCMV disease in seropositive recipients. However, plasma virus load measurements are of only modest value in predicting the risk of HCMV disease in seronegative recipients of kidneys from seropositive donors. HCMV infection is an independent risk-factor for acute kidney graft rejection. There is also evidence that HCMV is associated with an increased long-term mortality and post-transplant diabetes mellitus. Whether pre-emptive or prophylactic therapy should be the preferred strategy is not yet decided. Some studies indicate that HCMV prophylaxis may reduce the risk of acute rejection, and thereby increase long-term graft survival in seronegative recipients of kidneys from seropositive donors.

Recomendaciones GESITRA-SEIMC y RESITRA sobre prevención y tratamiento de la infección por citomegalovirus en pacientes trasplantados

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains an important complication of transplantation. The last decade has been characterized by improvements to management that has reduced its morbidity and mortality. The advance has been particularly important in the diagnosis and prevention. Several techniques have been developed that allow the increasingly rapid and sensitive diagnosis. The different preventive strategies include use of appropriate blood products, immune globulin, and antiviral agents either as prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy. The development of effective oral drugs as valganciclovir also represents a new advance. It is necessary to summarize these advances to facilitate the development of local policies reflecting recent changes. The Group of Study of Infections in Transplantation (GESITRA) of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) has therefore produced actual recommendations in the management of CMV infection after transplantation.

Antiviral medications to prevent cytomegalovirus disease and early death in recipients of solid-organ transplants: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly used in recipients of solid-organ transplants with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with cytomegalovirus infection. We undertook a systematic review to investigate whether this approach affects risks of cytomegalovirus disease and death.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials of prophylaxis with antiviral medications for cytomegalovirus disease in solid-organ-transplant recipients were identified. Data were combined in meta-analyses by a random-effects model.

FINDINGS

Compared with placebo or no treatment, prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir, or valaciclovir significantly reduced the risks of cytomegalovirus disease (19 trials, 1981 patients; relative risk 0.42 [95% CI 0.34-0.52]), cytomegalovirus infection (17 trials, 1786 patients; 0.61 [0.48-0.77]), and all-cause mortality (17 trials, 1838 patients; 0.63 [0.43-0.92]), mainly owing to lower mortality from cytomegalovirus disease (seven trials, 1300 patients; 0.26 [0.08-0.78]). Prophylaxis also lowered the risks of disease caused by herpes simplex or zoster virus, bacterial infections, and protozoal infections, but not fungal infection, acute rejection, or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the risk of cytomegalovirus disease or all-cause mortality by organ transplanted or cytomegalovirus serostatus; no conclusions were possible for cytomegalovirus-negative recipients of negative organs. In trials of direct comparisons, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus disease. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir.

INTERPRETATION

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces the risk of cytomegalovirus disease and associated mortality in recipients of solid-organ transplants. This approach should be used routinely in cytomegalovirus-positive recipients and in cytomegalovirus-negative recipients of organs positive for the virus.

Diffuse pulmonary infiltrates after bone marrow transplantation: the role of open lung biopsy

BACKGROUND

Diffuse pulmonary infiltrates is the major complication and cause of mortality after bone marrow transplantation. We analyzed the etiologies and prognostic factors in bone marrow recipients with diffuse pulmonary infiltrates and assessed the role of open lung biopsy in managing this complication.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with diffuse pulmonary infiltrates after bone marrow transplantation were reviewed. Possible prognostic factors were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight (20%) of 341 bone marrow recipients had diffuse pulmonary infiltrates and 34 died. Thirty-five underwent open lung biopsy, resulting in therapeutic changes in 22 (63%) and clinical improvement in 16 (46%). The leading diagnoses were idiopathic interstitial pneumonitis (40%) and cytomegalovirus pneumonitis (20%). Cytomegalovirus pneumonitis caused radiographically observable interstitial infiltrates exclusively and was frequently associated with hepatitis. Idiopathic interstitial pneumonitis resulted in either diffuse ground-glass opacity or interstitial infiltrates. Three (9%) patients had miliary tuberculosis. Respiratory failure (p < 0.001) and acute graft-versus-host disease (p = 0.016) were the poor prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Among bone marrow recipients, we found diffuse pulmonary infiltrates in 20% and a mortality rate of 50%. Idiopathic interstitial pneumonitis and cytomegalovirus pneumonitis were the most common causes and should be suspected in patients with diffuse interstitial infiltrates. In endemic areas, miliary tuberculosis should be suspected in bone marrow recipients with diffuse reticulonodular lesions. Respiratory failure and acute graft-versus-host disease were poor prognostic factors. By establishing a correct diagnosis, open lung biopsy led to treatment changes in about two-thirds of these patients.

Comparison of cytomegalovirus pp-65 antigenemia assay and plasma DNA correlation with the clinical outcome in transplant recipients

The relationship between quantitative antigenemia and plasma DNAemia was studied for monitoring cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia in CMV infection (CMVI) or disease (CMVD), in 20 transplant recipients (13 CMD, seven CMVI). A total of 142 samples of blood were assayed for CMV-DNA and pp-65 antigenemia (CMV-Ag). A quantitative correlation between both markers was found (P < 0.0001). First CMV antigenemia as well as first plasma DNA viral load was similar in CMVI and CMVD (29 vs. 24 CMV-Ag+ cells/10(5) PMN; and 7445 vs. 12407 CMV-DNA copies/ml). The maximum antigenemia was higher in CMVD than in CMVI (146 +/- 87 vs. 61 +/- 54 +cells/10(5) PMN, P < 0.05), but the highest CMV plasma viral load was similar in both groups (62592 +/- 33000 vs. 42055 +/- 38600 copies/ml). In nine patients, maximum antigenemia coincided with highest plasma DNA viral load, but in 10 highest DNAemia occurred 6 days later. On the contrary, antigenemia declined faster than CMV-DNAnemia, after treatment.

Ganciclovir prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in kidney recipients undergoing anti-lymphocyte globulin treatment for acute rejection

Kidney recipients (n = 51) at risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, and requiring anti-lymphocyte globulin therapy because of biopsy-proven rejection, received high-dose ganciclovir, three times a week, for a total of nine doses. CMV disease was observed in seven (14%) patients within 6 months. Six of these patients were in a group of 45 CMV-seropositive recipients, and one was in a high-risk group of CMV-seronegative recipients. High-dose intravenous ganciclovir, three times a week, seems to be an efficient, safe and easy way to prevent CMV disease in patients treated with anti-lymphocyte globulins for acute rejection.

[Efficacy preemptive therapy with ganciclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In liver transplant recipients the most frequent infection is that produced by cytomegalovirus (CMV). One of the methods to reduce the incidence of that infection is the CMV pp65 antigenemia-guided preemptive therapy with intravenous ganciclovir.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Liver transplant recipients were tested for CMV antigenemia at days 14, 28, 45, 60, 90 and 180 postransplantation and when clinically indicated. Patients showing > 50/200.000 leukocytes received ganciclovir 5 mg/kg/12 h for 14 days. Risk factors for active CMV disease where studied.

RESULTS

182 CMV seropositive patients where included in the study. 16 patients with > 50/200.000 leukocytes received ganciclovir as preemptive therapy. CMV disease appeared in 9/182 patients (4.9%): 2/16 who received PT and 7/166 among those who did not receive preemptive therapy. The only factor associated with increased incidence of CMV disease was to have missing samples for CMV antigenemia during the follow up (p < 0.0042; OR = 8,17; 95% CI, 1.94-34.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Ganciclovir antigenemia-guided preemptive therapy is associated with a low incidence of CMV disease. Bad adherence to the protocol of antigenemia samples increases the risk for CMV disease.

Viral prophylaxis in organ transplant patients

Viral pathogens have emerged as the most important microbial agents having deleterious effects on solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Antiviral chemoprophylaxis involves the administration of medications to abort transmission of, avoid reactivation of, or prevent progression to disease from, active viral infection. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the major microbial pathogen having a negative effect on SOT recipients. CMV causes infectious disease syndromes, augments iatrogenic immunosuppression and is commonly associated with opportunistic superinfection. CMV has also been implicated in the pathogenesis of rejection. Chemoprophylactic regimens for CMV have included oral aciclovir (acyclovir) at medium and high doses, intravenous and oral ganciclovir, and the prodrugs valaciclovir (valacyclovir) and valganciclovir. CMV prophylactic strategies should be stratified, with the highest-risk patients receiving the most 'potent' prophylactic regimens. Herpes simplex virus (HSV) reactivation in SOT recipients is more frequent, may become more invasive, takes longer to heal, and has greater potential for dissemination to visceral organs than it does in the immunocompetent host. Prophylactic regimens for CMV are also effective chemoprophylaxis against HSV; in the absence of CMV prophylaxis, aciclovir, valaciclovir or famciclovir should be used as HSV prophylaxis in seropositive recipients. Primary varicella-zoster virus (VZV) after SOT is rare and most commonly seen in the paediatric transplant population because of VZV epidemiology. Zoster occurs in 5-15% of patients, usually after the sixth post-transplant month. Prophylactic regimens for zoster are neither practical nor cost effective after SOT because of the late onset of disease and low proportion of affected individuals. All SOT recipients should receive VZV immune globulin after contact with either varicella or zoster. Epstein-Barr virus has its most significant effect in SOT as the precipitating factor in the development of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders. Antiviral agents that could be effective are the same as those used for CMV, but indications for and effectiveness of prophylaxis are poorly established. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are important pathogens in the SOT population as indications for transplantation. So-called 'prophylaxis' for recurrent HBV and HCV after liver transplantation is controversial, suppressive rather than preventive, and potentially lifelong. Influenza infection after SOT is acquired by person-to-person contact. During epidemic periods of influenza, transplant populations experience a relatively high frequency of infection, and influenza may affect immunosuppressed SOT recipients more adversely than immunocompetent individuals. Antiviral medications for prevention of influenza are administered as post-exposure prophylaxis to SOT recipients, in addition to yearly vaccine, in circumstances such as influenza epidemics and nosocomial outbreaks, and after exposure to a symptomatic individual during 'flu season'.

Beta-herpesvirus challenges in the transplant recipient

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) has major consequences after allogeneic stem cell and solid organ transplantation. CMV may cause significant morbidity and mortality, and monitoring to detect reactivation to reduce disease or management of end organ disease is associated with increased resource utilization. Two other members of the beta-herpesvirus family, human herpesvirus (HHV) type 6 and HHV-7, are increasingly recognized as important pathogens in transplant recipients, either by direct infection (e.g., encephalitis, hepatitis, or pneumonitis) or via interaction with CMV. In addition to direct effects of CMV infection, such indirect effects as an increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections or impaired graft acceptance and function are important research topics. Diagnosis and treatment of CMV infection is currently more advanced than for HHV-6 and HHV-7.

Distinguishing cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease with CMV nucleic acid assays

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among transplant recipients. Molecular assays have been developed for the detection and quantification of CMV nucleic acid. In evaluating the clinical utility of these assays, correlations with clinical outcome are essential. The Amplicor CMV Monitor and NucliSens CMV pp67 tests were compared to the CMV antigenemia assay for 45 transplant recipients and 1 patient with Wegener's granulomatosis. Twenty-three patients remained antigenemia negative throughout the monitoring period, none of whom developed CMV disease. In this patient group, both the Amplicor and NucliSens assays showed very high specificity; only 1 of the 324 specimens assayed by NucliSens and none of the 303 specimens assayed by Amplicor were positive. Twenty-three patients were antigenemia positive during the monitoring period, 12 of whom developed 13 episodes of symptomatic CMV disease. In this patient group, the NucliSens assay was positive at or before the development of symptoms in 12 of the 13 episodes of CMV disease. All eight patients with symptomatic CMV disease who were tested by the Amplicor assay were positive at or before the development of disease. For the 11 asymptomatic patients, the NucliSens assay was positive less frequently than the antigenemia or Amplicor assays. The NucliSens assay was more likely to be positive at higher antigenemia or viral load levels. Both the NucliSens and Amplicor assays appear to have clinical utility in monitoring patients for CMV disease.

Predictors of cytomegalovirus disease among pediatric transplant recipients within one year of renal transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic infection in renal transplant recipients and is associated with an increased risk of rejection. Infection can be acquired post-operatively (from the transplanted organ) or from re-activation of latent disease. To identify risk factors for CMV disease in a pediatric population within 1 yr of renal transplant, and to generate hypotheses for the pathogenesis of CMV disease in this population, a review of all recipients from 1992 to 1998 in a children's hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, was undertaken. Medical records of 73 transplants performed on 72 patients were reviewed: nine (12.7%) of 72 individuals, after 73 procedures developed CMV disease. Median time to onset of CMV disease was 52 days post-transplant (range = 15-95 days). Receipts of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), demographic factors, and use of cadaveric kidneys were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of CMV disease. Positive donor CMV serostatus was associated with CMV disease (uni-variate relative risk [RR] = 8.52, Fisher's Exact Test [FET] p = 0.010). Patients with transplants in October or November had a higher risk of developing CMV disease (four of 13; 30.8%) than patients transplanted in other months (five of 60, 8.3%); RR = 3.69; p = 0.047, FET). Most transplants of patients who did not develop CMV disease were performed in January through August (48/64; 75.0%); only 25.0% were performed in September through December. In contrast, six of nine (66.7%) transplants in patients who subsequently developed CMV disease were performed in September through December (p = 0.018, FET). Donor CMV-positive serostatus and transplant in October and November continued to be independently associated with an increased risk of CMV disease when controlled for other factors. The association of transplant in October and November with CMV disease in November-January may be related to an increased risk of seasonal community CMV exposure and primary CMV infection during the peak season for CMV circulation, with subsequent immune suppression promoting progression to disease. Alternatively, co-infection with seasonal pathogens after exposure from an infected donor during the period of immune suppression may promote progression from CMV infection to CMV disease. Further studies should be undertaken to explore these and other hypotheses, which may have implications for determination of a need for anti-viral prophylaxis.

Oral valganciclovir: a new option for treatment of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in immunocompromised hosts

Immunocompromised hosts are at increased risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and serious CMV disease. CMV infection is an important cause of morbidity among patients infected with HIV and after solid organ transplantation (SOT) and may cause life-threatening disease in allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients. The introduction into clinical use of potent antiviral compounds and of rapid detection assays for CMV during the past two decades has allowed development of strategies for the prevention and treatment of disease caused by CMV in these groups of immunocompromised patients. At present, the antiviral drugs ganciclovir, foscarnet and cidofovir are commonly used in the treatment of CMV infection and disease. However, these agents have a poor oral bioavailability and, for systemic use, require iv. administration for most indications. Valganciclovir is an oral prodrug of ganciclovir, with a 10-fold greater bioavailability than oral ganciclovir. Studies of the pharmacokinetics of valganciclovir among HIV-infected CMV-seropositive patients and liver transplant recipients suggest that this oral compound has the potential to replace both oral and iv. ganciclovir in many situations if it is shown to be as efficacious and safe as those ganciclovir formulations in immunodeficient patients. In the first part of this review, currently established approaches to the management of CMV infection and disease in SCT and SOT recipients and HIV-infected patients are discussed to highlight possible indications for future valganciclovir use; in the second part, data from human studies of valganciclovir are presented.

Management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease after solid-organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) continues to be a cause of substantial morbidity and death after solid-organ transplantation. There are 3 major consequences of CMV infection: CMV disease, including a wide range of clinical illnesses; superinfection with opportunistic pathogens; and injury to the transplanted organ, possibly enhancing chronic rejection. This article discusses the considerable progress that has been made in elucidating risk factors for CMV disease, in the rapid detection of CMV in clinical specimens, and in the use of antiviral chemotherapy and immunoglobulin to prevent and treat CMV disease after solid-organ transplantation.

Prophylaxis for CMV should now replace pre-emptive therapy in solid organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in transplantation. Controversy exists concerning whether prophylactic or pre-emptive therapy is the optimal strategy for preventing CMV disease. In addition, CMV impacts the transplanted graft, transplant recipient and transplant programme beyond just causing CMV disease; thus questioning whether 'asymptomatic' CMV replication should also be prevented. In this Forum article, prophylactic therapy is advocated as the preferred approach for preventing CMV disease. Prophylactic therapy has a large body of supportive controlled clinical studies demonstrating its efficacy and cost effectiveness. In addition, prophylactic therapy has the benefit of preventing other herpes viruses and other opportunistic superinfections by reducing the immunosuppressive effects of CMV. Moreover, a small but growing body of information suggests that prophylactic therapy may also have a beneficial effect on organ outcomes, including rejection. In contrast, pre-emptive therapy is limited by its reliance on intensive surveillance, which presents logistical difficulties and requires perfect patient compliance. Ambiguity still exists concerning the best surveillance method and its effect on patient-care costs. Each proposed diagnostic approach has limitations, which are affected by the prevalence of CMV in the population studied, the particular assay employed, and the frequency of surveillance. The suggested benefits of pre-emptive therapy, such as decreased cost, fewer adverse medication effects and less antiviral resistance have not been adequately proven in head-to-head clinical studies. We therefore support the proposition that transplant patients at risk for any level of CMV replication will significantly benefit from effective antiviral prophylaxis.

Preemptive therapy versus universal prophylaxis with ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients

Whether preemptive therapy or universal prophylaxis with ganciclovir is the optimal approach against cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains unresolved. Controversy abounds with respect to the efficacy of preemptive therapy, the reliability of preemptive therapy tools, the logistical difficulties in conducting surveillance monitoring for CMV, the cost of prophylaxis, the effect of prophylaxis on indirect sequelae of CMV and epidemiology of CMV, and the potential for emergence of ganciclovir-resistant CMV. Although neither approach is wholly adequate, a discussion of the relative merits and limitations of the 2 approaches may guide the selection of a rational approach toward prevention of CMV infection in organ transplant recipients.

Patterns of cytomegalovirus infection in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone with ganciclovir prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The impact of tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroid immunosuppression on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in combination with ganciclovir prophylaxis in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation (SKPT) has not been well studied.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of 75 SKPTs performed between 1 January 1996 and 7 January 1999. All patients received ganciclovir for 3 months, but CMV donor (D)+ / recipient (R)- patients received ganciclovir for 6 months.

RESULTS

16/74 (22%) were CMV D+/R-, 25 (33%) D+/R+, 16 (22%) D-/R+, and 17 (23%) D-/R- (1 patient with unknown donor serology was excluded). The mean time to CMV infection was 198 days post-transplant. The incidence of either CMV infection or tissue invasive CMV disease was 16/74 (22%), including 9 (12%) with CMV infection and 7 (10%) CMV disease. The one-year patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates were 91%, 89%, and 83%, respectively. The mean follow-up was 29 months (minimum of 12 months). CMV infection was not associated with an increased incidence of graft failure or mortality. The D+/R- group had the highest incidence of CMV infection (44%) compared with the other serologic groups (17%, P=0.02). Concurrent CMV and rejection occurred more frequently in the D+/R- than the other serologic groups (25% vs. 7%, P=0.03). The D-/R- group had the best outcomes, with no CMV infection, improved kidney graft survival at the end of follow-up (82% vs. 72%, P=0.04) and the highest event-free survival (no CMV infection, rejection, or graft loss) when compared to the other groups (76% vs. 33%, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to previous studies, ganciclovir prophylaxis delayed the onset and reduced the severity of CMV infection in patients receiving TAC, MMF, and steroids. Despite ganciclovir prophylaxis, CMV seronegative patients receiving CMV D+ organs had worse outcomes than seronegative recipients receiving CMV D- organs.

Prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of solid-organ transplants

The introduction and combination of more-potent immunosuppressive regimens, and the increased transplantation of organs into more severely ill patients, have again placed cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in the spotlight of posttransplantation complications. Both direct and associated complications related to CMV need to be considered in understanding the pathogenesis of CMV infection after solid-organ transplantation. New diagnostic methods with higher sensitivity for the detection of CMV and the ability to quantify CMV indicate that low levels of CMV replication are present in many patients who don't have clinical symptoms ascribed to CMV infection. How these low levels of CMV replication impact the outcome of the transplanted graft remains unknown. In addition, there needs to be further study regarding whether only patients at high risk for developing CMV disease or, also, those with clinically asymptomatic levels of CMV replication should be the target of effective preventive regimens. This review summarizes our current knowledge of the pathogenesis of CMV infection after solid-organ transplantation, and it outlines different effective preventive regimens and approaches.

Ganciclovir: an update of its use in the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients

Ganciclovir is a nucleoside guanosine analogue which incorporates ganciclovir triphosphate (the active moiety) into DNA during elongation, thereby inhibiting viral replication. Comparative studies of pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir therapies in bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients have shown similar rates of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, disease and patient mortality. Long term prophylaxis with either oral, or sequential intravenous/oral, ganciclovir has shown efficacy in renal allograft recipients, including high risk patients or those receiving antilymphocyte antibody therapy. A preliminary study indicates that ganciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir in paediatric patients. Both oral and intravenous prophylactic ganciclovir regimens have shown efficacy compared with no antiviral treatment in lung transplant recipients; initial reports have shown similar efficacy between pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir. Oral ganciclovir monotherapy is as efficacious as sequential intravenous/oral ganciclovir therapy in liver transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment was equally as effective as long term ganciclovir prophylaxis in high risk patients. Ganciclovir prophylaxis for 4 weeks appears ineffective in heart allograft recipients treated with antithymocyte globulin. Long term sequential intravenous/ oral ganciclovir therapy has shown greater efficacy in preventing CMV disease than sequential ganciclovir/aciclovir therapy. in these patients. Initial reports indicate that pre-emptive therapy may be beneficial in this patient group. although this remains to be determined. Ganciclovir in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability with adverse effects usually of a haematological or neurological nature. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia are the primary dose-limiting toxicities associated with ganciclovir therapy. Overall, neutropenia occurs less frequently with administration of oral ganciclovir than with intravenous ganciclovir. Monitoring of renal function is recommended as serum creatinine levels may rise during ganciclovir therapy. In addition, ganciclovir prophylaxis appears more cost effective than the majority of other currently available therapies for CMV with oral ganciclovir more cost effective than intravenous ganciclovir. In conclusion, it is unlikely that a single strategy will be able to be applied to all transplant patients for the prevention of CMV disease. An optimal strategy will probably be arisk-adapted approach. Prophylactic treatment with ganciclovir appears the best strategy to implement in high risk patients: oral ganciclovir formulations may be best employed where lower toxicity is required. Pre-emptive treatment with ganciclovir appears most efficacious in patients identified as lower risk or, in the case of BMT recipients, where lower toxicity may be desirable. Ganciclovir remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention and treatment of CMV disease in transplant recipients.