Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus 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 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.

The Donor Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Chain-Related Molecule A Allele rs2596538 G Predicts Cytomegalovirus Viremia in Kidney Transplant Recipients

The interaction of major histocompatibility complex class I chain-related protein A (MICA) and its cognate activating receptor natural killer (NK) group 2 member D (NKG2D) receptor plays a significant role in viral immune control. In the context of kidney transplantation (KTx), cytomegalovirus (CMV) frequently causes severe complications. Hypothesizing that functional polymorphisms of the MICA/NKG2D axis might affect antiviral NK and T cell responses to CMV, we explored the association of the MICA-129 Met/Val single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (affecting the binding affinity of MICA with the NKG2D receptor), the MICA rs2596538 G/A SNP (influencing MICA transcription), and the NKG2D rs1049174 G/C SNP (determining the cytotoxic potential of effector cells) with the clinical outcome of CMV during the first year after KTx in a cohort of 181 kidney donor-recipients pairs. Univariate analyses identified the donor MICA rs2596538 G allele status as a protective prognostic determinant for CMV disease. In addition to the well-known prognostic factors CMV high-risk sero-status of patients and the application of lymphocyte-depleting drugs, the donor MICA rs2596538 G allele carrier status was confirmed by multivariate analyses as novel-independent factor predicting the development of CMV infection/disease during the first year after KTx. The results of our study emphasize the clinical importance of the MICA/NKG2D axis in CMV control in KTx and point out that the potential MICA transcription in the donor allograft is of clinically relevant importance for CMV immune control in this allogeneic situation. Furthermore, they provide substantial evidence that the donor MICA rs2596538 G allele carrier status is a promising genetic marker predicting CMV viremia after KTx. Thus, in the kidney transplant setting, donor MICA rs2596538 G may help to allow the future development of personal CMV approaches within a genetically predisposed patient cohort.

Bloodstream Infections

Bacteremia and sepsis are conditions associated with high mortality and are of great impact to health care operations. Among the top causes of mortality in the United States, these conditions cause over 600 fatalities each day. Empiric, broad-spectrum treatment is a common but often a costly approach that may fail to effectively target the correct microbe, may inadvertently harm patients via antimicrobial toxicity or downstream antimicrobial resistance. To meet the diagnostic challenges of bacteremia and sepsis, laboratories must understand the complexity of diagnosing and treating septic patients, in order to focus on creating algorithms that can help direct a more targeted approach to antimicrobial therapy and synergize with existing clinical practices defined in new Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. Significant advances have been made in improving blood culture media; as yet no molecular or antigen-based method has proven superior for the detection of bacteremia in terms of limit of detection. Several methods for rapid molecular identification of pathogens from blood cultures bottles are available and many more are on the diagnostic horizon. Ultimately, early intervention by molecular detection of bacteria and fungi directly from whole blood could provide the most patient benefit and contribute to tailored antibiotic coverage of the patient early on in the course of the disease. Although blood cultures remain as the best means of diagnosing bacteremia and candidemia, complementary testing with antigen tests, microbiologic investigations from other body sites, and histopathology can often aid in the diagnosis of disseminated disease, and application of emerging nucleic acid test methods and other new technology may greatly impact our ability to bacteremic and septic patients, particularly those who are immunocompromised.

Two strategies for prevention of cytomegalovirus infections after liver transplantation

AIM: To analyze differences in patients’ clinical course, we compared two regimes of either preemptive therapy or prophylaxis after liver transplantation.

METHODS: This retrospective study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the University of Leipzig. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis with valganciclovir hydrochloride for liver transplant recipients was replaced by a preemptive strategy in October 2009. We retrospectively compared liver transplant recipients 2 years before and after October 2009. During the first period, all patients received valganciclovir daily. During the second period all patients included in the analysis were treated following a preemptive strategy. Outcomes included one year survival and therapeutic intervention due to CMV viremia or infection.

RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2010 n = 226 patients underwent liver transplantation in our center. n = 55 patients were D⁺/R^- high risk recipients and were excluded from further analysis. A further 43 patients had to be excluded since CMV prophylaxis/preemptive strategy was not followed although there was no clinical reason for the deviation. Of the remaining 128 patients whose data were analyzed, 60 received prophylaxis and 68 were treated following a preemptive strategy. The difference in overall mortality was not significant, nor was it significant for one-year mortality where it was 10% (95%CI: 8%-28%, P = 0.31) higher for the preemptive group. No significant differences in blood count abnormalities or the incidence of sepsis and infections were observed other than CMV. In total, 19 patients (14.7%) received ganciclovir due to CMV viremia and/or infections. Patients who were treated according to the preemptive algorithm had a significantly higher rate risk of therapeutic intervention with ganciclovir [n = 16 (23.5%) vs n = 3 (4.9%), P = 0.003)].

CONCLUSION: These data suggest that CMV prophylaxis is superior to a preemptive strategy in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

Low-Dose Valacyclovir for Cytomegalovirus Infection Prophylaxis After a Heart Transplant

OBJECTIVES

Cytomegalovirus infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in solid-organ transplant. Low doses of valacyclovir have been administered as cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in our institution for years. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study of a low-dose regimen for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in heart transplant patients. Therefore, our aim was to determine the results of low doses of valacyclovir in heart transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2006 and December 2014, sixty-eight patients underwent orthotopic heart transplants. All of the patients received triple immunosuppressive therapy after surgery. During the next 6 months, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim was administered for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, and toxoplasmosis. Additionally all patients received valacyclovir hydrochloride (1000 mg/d, oral) for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis and nystatin oral rinse for prophylaxis of fungal infections.

RESULTS

There was only 1 cytomegalovirus infection at follow-up. The patient had cytomegalovirus pneumonia at 17-month follow-up. In response to treatment with 1-week intravenous ganciclovir, the patient was discharged with a further 6-month oral valacyclovir therapy (1000 mg/d).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we hypothesized that daily use of low-dose valacyclovir (1000 mg/d) is not only sufficient for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis but also beneficial in terms of cost.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, or hospital stay and are likely to increase overall transplant costs. All liver transplantation patients receive antibiotic prophylaxis. This is an update of our 2008 Cochrane systematic review on the same topic in which we identified seven randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in people undergoing liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status. We excluded quasi-randomised and other observational studies for assessment of benefits, but not for harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available-case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only seven trials for inclusion, including 614 participants. Only one trial was of low risk of bias risk. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. There were five comparisons in the seven trials: selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics; prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics; and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, participants were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In one trial, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic) was compared with inactive lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In the remaining trial, different doses of G-CSF and placebo were compared. There was no trial comparing different antibiotic prophylactic regimens in people undergoing liver transplantation. Most trials included adults undergoing elective liver transplantation. There was no significant difference in proportion of people who died or required retransplantation between the intervention and control groups in any of the five comparison groups. MORTALITY There were no differences between 190 participants (three trials); 5/87 (adjusted proportion: 6.2%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 7/103 (6.8%) in inactive control group; RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.72); 63 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR - not estimable; 64 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 0/65 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; and 194 participants (one trial); 22/124 (17.7%) in G-CSF group versus 10/70 (14.3%) in placebo group; RR 1.24 (95% 0.62 to 2.47). RETRANSPLANTATION There were no differences between 132 participants (two trials); 4/58 (adjusted proportion: 6.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 6/74 (8.1%) in inactive control group; RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.85); 63 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 2.91 (0.12 to 68.81); 64 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR 3.00 (95% CI 0.13 to 71.00); 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 1/65 (1.5%) in prebiotics group; RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.9); and 194 participants (one trial); 10/124 (7.1%) in G-CSF group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in placebo group; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.17).There was no significant difference in the graft rejections, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between the intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons. Overall, 193/611 participants (31.6%) developed infective complications. The proportion of people who developed infective complications and the number of infective complication episodes were significantly higher in the selective bowel decontamination group than in the prebiotics with probiotics group (1 study; 63 participants; 15/32 (46.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 (12.9%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 3.63; 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74 and 23/32 participants (0.72 infective complications per participant) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 participants (0.13 infective complications per participant) in prebiotics with probiotics group; rate ratio 5.58; 95% CI 1.94 to 16.09). There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who developed infection and the number of infection episodes between the intervention group and control group in any of the other comparisons.No trials reported quality of life and overall serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination may even increase the rate of infections compared with prebiotics with probiotics. The confidence intervals were wide and further randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.

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.

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.

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.

[Clinical use of micafungin for the treatment of invasive candidiasis in critical ill patients]

BACKGROUND

Over the last 30 years a significant increase of Candida spp. invasive disease has been observed in non-neutropenic critical ill patients. Both fluconazole and amphotericin B have been considered first line treatment for invasive (proven and probable) Candida spp. disease, although the mortality rate is still high.

OBJECTIVES

To review the current data on the use of micafungin for the treatment of Candida invasive disease in critical ill patients.

METHODS

The pharmacologic, mycological and clinical properties of micafungin are reviewed based on current published data. The use and efficacy of micafungin for the treatment of Candida invasive disease in critical ill patients is discussed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

To reduce the rate of mortality more effective antifungals and pre-emptive treatment strategies are currently warranted. Candins achieve better results for the treatment of invasive Candida disease in non-neutropenic critical ill patients. Micafungin has a good safety profile (similar to fluconazole). Micafungin is a first line drug for the treatment of invasive Candida disease and may be used as a pre- emptive approach followed by a de-escalating strategy with azoles.

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.

Acceleration of allograft failure by cytomegalovirus

A number of human herpesviruses are important opportunistic pathogens that have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients including human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), HHV6, HHV7, HHV8 as well as HSV-1, VZV. However, HCMV has been linked both epidemiologically and through the use of animal models to the acceleration of acute and chronic allograft rejection. This review will cover the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and mechanisms of CMV-associated disease in the setting of transplantation.

Maternal administration of valaciclovir in symptomatic intrauterine cytomegalovirus infection

OBJECTIVES

To report early experience with treatment of intrauterine cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection using maternal oral administration of valaciclovir (VACV).

DESIGN

Observational study of fetuses infected with CMV with or without treatment with valaciclovir.

POPULATION

Pregnancies with confirmed fetal CMV infection were treated with oral VACV (8 g/day).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Fetal viral load and drug concentration were monitored in amniotic fluid and in fetal blood. Data on the course and outcome of a group of untreated symptomatic fetuses infected with CMV are also reported.

RESULTS

Therapeutic concentrations were achieved in maternal and fetal bloods. The viral load in the fetal blood (VLFB) decreased significantly after 1-12 weeks of treatment (Wilcoxon paired test P = 0.02). Twenty pregnancies including 21 fetuses were treated at 28 weeks (median, range: 22-34) for 7 weeks (median, range: 1-12). Ten infants were developing normally at between 1 and 5 years of age. Two infants (both aged 2 years) had severe isolated unilateral deafness. One neonate presented with microcephaly and severe deafness but was also diagnosed with incontinentia pigmenti. Six out of seven cases that eventually required termination of pregnancy (TOP) had evidence of in utero progression of the disease with worsening cerebral lesions. One fetus died in utero. The outcome of 14/24 (58.3%) untreated symptomatic infected fetuses was poor with either TOP, intrauterine fetal demise or severe congenital infection disease of the neonate; the remaining ten infants were healthy at follow up.

CONCLUSION

Maternal oral administration of VACV leads to therapeutic concentrations in the maternal and fetal compartments, with a decrease in VLFB. Our results suggest that in cases where TOP is declined, a randomised controlled trial to study this treatment option further is indicated.

Immunoglobulins, vaccines or interferon for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common virus causing disease and death in solid organ transplant recipients during the first six months post-transplant. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the efficacy of antiviral medications used prophylactically or pre-emptively in preventing CMV disease. In this review the efficacy of older agents (immunoglobulins (IgG), anti CMV vaccines and interferon) are examined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of IgG, anti CMV vaccines or interferon for preventing symptomatic CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction. Date of last search: December 2005

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing IgG, anti CMV vaccine or interferon with placebo or no treatment, IgG alone or combined with antiviral medications with antiviral medications or IgG alone in recipients of any solid organ transplant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors 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).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty seven trials (2185 participants) were included in this review. There was no significant difference in the risk for CMV disease (16 trials, 770 patients: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.05), CMV infection (14 trials, 775 patients: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10) or all-cause mortality (8 trials, 502 patients: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.03) with IgG compared with placebo/no treatment. However IgG significantly reduced the risk of death from CMV disease (6 trials, 346 patients: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80). There was no difference in the risk for CMV disease (4 trials, 298 patients: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.86), CMV infection (4 trials, 298 patients: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.52) or all-cause mortality (2 trials, 217 patients: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.29) between antiviral medication combined with IgG and antiviral medication alone. There was no significant difference in the risk of CMV disease with anti CMV vaccine or interferon compared with placebo or no treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there are no indications for IgG in the prophylaxis of CMV disease in recipients of solid organ transplants.