Prophylactic therapy with valgancyclovir in high-risk (cytomegalovirus D+/R-) liver transplant recipients: a single-center experience

Cytomegalovirus Post-Prophylaxis Surveillance in High-Risk Kidney and Liver Recipients Prevents CMV End-Organ Disease and Ganciclovir-Resistance

PURPOSE

Evaluate cytomegalovirus (CMV) post-prophylaxis surveillance in high-risk (D+/R-) kidney and liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

Adult D+/R- patients were included if transplanted between 6/1/15 and 11/30/22 and divided into a pre-CMV-stewardship-era (6/1/15-5/31/18), CMV-stewardship-era (6/1/18-6/30/20), and a surveillance-era (7/1/2020-11/30/2022) then followed through 12 months. The primary objective was to evaluate CMV-related outcomes. The secondary objective was to assess graft and patient survival by era.

RESULTS

There were 328 patients in the study period; 133 in the pre-stewardship-era, 103 in the stewardship-era, and 92 in the surveillance-era. Replication rates in the surveillance-era were significantly higher, as anticipated due to increased sampling (pre 38.4%, stewardship 33.0%, surveillance 52.2%, p = 0.02). Time from transplant to first replication was similar (pre 214.0 ± 79.0 days, stewardship 231.1 ± 65.5, surveillance 234.9 ± 61.4, p = 0.29). CMV viral load (VL) at first detection, maximum-VL, and incidence of VL > 100 000 IU/mL were numerically lower in the surveillance era, although not statistically significant. CMV end-organ disease (p < 0.0001) and ganciclovir-resistance (p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the surveillance era than in both previous eras. Rejection was not different between eras (p = 0.4). Graft (p = 0.0007) and patient survival (p = 0.008) were significantly improved in the surveillance era.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-prophylaxis surveillance significantly reduced CMV end-organ disease and resistance. Despite observing increased replication rates in the surveillance era, rejection was not significantly different and there was no graft loss or patient mortality at 12 months.

Comparison of standard versus low-dose valganciclovir regimens for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in high-risk liver transplant recipients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of two valganciclovir (VGCV) institutional dosing protocols for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in liver transplant (LT) recipients with CMV serotype donor +/recipient- (D+/R-).

METHODS

This was a single-center review of CMV D+/R- adult LT recipients who received VGCV 450 mg/day for 90 days (low-dose) or VGCV 900 mg/day for 180 days (standard-dose). The primary outcome was incidence of CMV disease at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included rates of CMV syndrome, end-organ disease, breakthrough infection, and resistance. Neutropenia, early discontinuation of VGCV, growth colony stimulating factors use (G-CSF), biopsy-proven rejection (BPAR), graft loss, and death at 1 year were analyzed.

RESULTS

Ninety-six CMV D+/R- LT recipients were included. Although no difference in CMV disease was observed (low-dose 26% vs. standard-dose 23%, p = 0.71), 75% of CMV infections in the low-dose group presented with end-organ disease. Ganciclovir (GCV) resistance was observed only in the low-dose group (n = 2). Significantly more patients in the standard-dose group developed neutropenia (low-dose 10% vs 60% standard-dose, p < 0.001). In the standard-dose group, 29% required early discontinuation of VGCV (vs. 5% in the low-dose group, p < 0.001), and 20% were treated with G-CSF. Both cohorts had similar rates of BPAR, graft loss, and death at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

VGCV 900 mg/day for 180 days had higher rates of hematologic adverse effects resulting in frequent treatment interruptions. However, the occurrence of two cases of GCV-resistant CMV disease raises concerns about routinely using low-dose VGCV prophylaxis.

Progress and Challenges in the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplantation

Hosts with compromised or naive immune systems, such as individuals living with HIV/AIDS, transplant recipients, and fetuses, are at the highest risk for complications from cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Despite substantial progress in prevention, diagnostics, and treatment, CMV continues to negatively impact both solid-organ transplant (SOT) and hematologic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. In this article, we summarize important developments in the field over the past 10 years and highlight new approaches and remaining challenges to the optimal control of CMV infection and disease in transplant settings.

Impact of valganciclovir prophylaxis duration on cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk donor seropositive/recipient seronegative heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Few data support use of 6 over 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in donor seropositive/recipient seronegative (D+R-) heart transplant recipients (HTR).

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed CMV disease and outcomes in 310 adult HTR between July 5, 2005, and December 30, 2016, at our center. Valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis was given for 3-6 months in the D+R- group. Multivariable models evaluated risk factors for CMV disease in patients who received 3 vs 6 months (±1 month) of prophylaxis, with investigation of inverse probability weighting to correct for confounding variables.

RESULTS

The incidence of CMV disease among all patients and the D+R- group was 8.7% (27/310) and 26.5% (22/83), respectively, and included syndrome in 22.2% (6/27) and end-organ involvement in 77.8% (21/27). In a multivariable model, 6 vs 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis was not associated with reduced risk for CMV disease (OR 2.28 [95% CI 0.66, 7.91], P = .19). CMV disease in D+R- HTR was associated with higher rates of hospitalization (87.5% [14/16] vs 6.3% [1/16], P < .001) and for a longer duration than in matched D+R- controls without disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytomegalovirus disease remains a major cause of morbidity in D+R- HTR. In contrast to documented benefit in D+R- lung and kidney recipients, VGCV duration of 6 months was not associated with a lower incidence of CMV disease in D+R- HTR compared to 3-month duration and should be reconsidered in this patient population.

Low dose valganciclovir as cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in post-renal transplant recipients induced with alemtuzumab: A single-center study

OBJECTIVES

Alemtuzumab (Ale) is a recombinant monoclonal antibody which binds to CD52 causing profound lymphodepletion, thus allowing its use in renal transplantation induction therapy. However, patients may be at increased risk for opportunistic infections, such as Cytomegalovirus (CMV). We analyzed CMV infection in renal allograft recipients administered low-dose valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis with alemtuzumab induction and steroid minimization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, 678 kidney transplant recipients were evaluated, with 606 included for analysis. Patients were excluded for receiving induction therapy other than Ale, or for lack of follow-up within 1 year. VGCV prophylaxis was stratified by recipient CMV risk status and low-dose (450 mg) VGCV was given 3 times a week to low and moderate risk patients and daily to high risk individuals. Subject records were examined for recipient demographics, donor and recipient CMV serostatus, CMV viremia, and invasive infection.

RESULTS

Of the 606 recipients, 154 were defined as low risk for CMV infection (donor and recipient both negative, or D-/R-), 236 as moderate risk without mismatch (D+/R+), 122 as moderate risk with mismatch (D-/R+), and 94 as high risk (D+/R-). Twenty-nine (29) individuals (4.8%) tested positive by PCR for CMV viremia and 10 (1.7%) patients developed invasive CMV disease, including colitis (n = 4), esophagitis (n = 1), enteritis (n = 1), nephritis (n = 1), and pneumonia (n = 3). High risk recipients (D+/R-) accounted for the majority of invasive CMV disease (n = 5), followed by moderate risk (n = 4). CMV viremia was also more common in high risk and moderate risk (D+/R+) individuals. Overall rejection rate for our study population was 27%.

CONCLUSION

In this institution's experience, CMV incidence was reduced compared to historically reported data by using low-dose (450 mg) VGCV prophylaxis in combination with Ale induction and steroid minimization. However, overall rejection rate was significantly higher in our population, possibly influenced by the degree of steroid minimization.

The Third International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid-organ Transplantation

Despite recent advances, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections remain one of the most common complications affecting solid organ transplant recipients, conveying higher risks of complications, graft loss, morbidity, and mortality. Research in the field and development of prior consensus guidelines supported by The Transplantation Society has allowed a more standardized approach to CMV management. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened to expand and revise evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management including prevention, treatment, diagnostics, immunology, drug resistance, and pediatric issues. Highlights include advances in molecular and immunologic diagnostics, improved understanding of diagnostic thresholds, optimized methods of prevention, advances in the use of novel antiviral therapies and certain immunosuppressive agents, and more savvy approaches to treatment resistant/refractory disease. The following report summarizes the updated recommendations.

Role of Secondary Prophylaxis With Valganciclovir in the Prevention of Recurrent Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Ganciclovir and valganciclovir are highly effective antiviral drugs with a well-established role in primary prophylaxis and treatment of CMV disease. Our objective in this study was to examine the effect of secondary prophylaxis (SP) on the risk of relapse in SOTRs following an episode of CMV disease.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of SOTRs from 1995 to 2015 and used propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology to control for confounding by indication. A weighted Cox model was created to determine the effect of SP on time to relapse within 1 year of treatment completion.

Results

Fifty-two heart, 34 liver, 79 kidney, and 5 liver-kidney transplant recipients who completed treatment for an episode of CMV infection/disease were included. A total of 120 (70.6%) received SP (median duration, 61 days; range, 5-365) and 39 (23%) relapsed. SP was protective against relapse from 0 to 6 weeks following treatment completion (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.69). However, after 6 weeks, risk of relapse did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.46-2.99).

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that use of SP following treatment of CMV disease did not confer long-term protection against relapse, although it did delay relapse while patients were receiving antivirals. This suggests that SP has limited clinical utility in the overall prevention of recurrent CMV disease.

Cytomegalovirus Disease After Liver Transplant-A Description of a Treatment-Resistant Case: A Case Report and Literature Review

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication in solid organ transplant recipients. In patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment, CMV may lead to life-threatening organ complications or graft loss. We describe a case of 31-year-old CMV-seronegative patient who underwent liver transplant from a CMV-seropositive donor with an early acute resistant rejection of the transplanted organ followed by primary CMV infection, despite prophylaxis, and its severe organ complications. Routine treatment of acute allograft rejection through increasing the base immunosuppression and then administering methylprednisolone infusions did not yield significant therapeutic effect. This resulted in anti-thymocyte globulin and ultimately proteasome inhibitor introduction. The cholestasis remitted and liver parameters improved. But 4 weeks later the patient was admitted again due to incorrect liver function tests. Blood tests revealed high CMV viral load, and primary CMV infection was diagnosed. On diagnosis the patient was treated with ganciclovir (GCV) intravenously. As GCV resistance was suspected based on clinical premises, foscarnet (FOS) and leflunomide (LFM) were implemented with concomitant cautious immunosuppression reduction due to the history of recent graft rejection. Despite aggressive treatment introduction, viral clearance was not obtained. Ultimately the patient died due to respiratory distress resulting from lung fibrosis, most probably owing to CMV diseases with Pneumocystis jiroveci coinfection. The presented case proves the importance of strictly following the rules of prophylaxis, especially in patients with a high risk factor of CMV infection development. A quick diagnosis, implementation of appropriate treatment, and fast reaction to the lack of satisfying therapeutic effect can be the key to a successful treatment.

Cytomegalovirus Infection in Liver Transplant Recipients: Current Approach to Diagnosis and Management

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common viral infection in liver transplant recipients, affecting post-transplant patients and graft survival. Recent advances in diagnosis and management of CMV have led to marked reduction in incidence, severity, and its associated morbidity and mortality. CMV DNA assay is the most commonly used laboratory parameter to diagnose and monitor CMV infection. Current evidence suggests that both pre-emptive and universal prophylaxis approaches are equally justified in liver transplant recipients. Intravenous ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir are the most commonly used drugs for treatment of CMV disease. Most of the centre use valganciclovir prophylaxis for prevention of CMV disease in liver trasplant recipient. The aim of this article is to review the current standard of care for diagnosis and management of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients.

Universal prophylaxis or preemptive strategy for cytomegalovirus disease after liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We systematically reviewed and meta-analyze the efficacy of universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive (PE) strategies (using ganciclovir or valganciclovir) in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease (CMD) among liver transplant recipients (LTRs). We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database till December 2013. Studies that assessed UP or PE for preventing CMD in LTRs were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was CMD, secondary outcomes being acute cellular rejection (ACR), graft loss (GL) and mortality. Due to the heterogeneity of comparative studies, an indirect comparison was performed. Pooled incidence rates with 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated for each outcome using a random-effects model. Thirty-two studies involving 2456 LTRs were included. The majority of the studies were of low risk of bias. Irrespective of donor/recipient CMV sero-status, CMD was 10% with UP (95% CI: 6-14; I(2)  = 87%; 16 studies, n = 1581) and 7% with PE (95% CI: 3-10; I(2)  = 84%; 16 studies, n = 875) (mean difference 2.6; 95% CI: -3.25 to 8.45, p = 0.34). Likewise, ACR and mortality were similar with the two strategies. However, GL was significantly lower in the UP group, regardless of donor/recipient sero-status. In indirect comparison, the incidence of CMD, ACR and mortality in LTRs were similar with two strategies. Trials comparing the two strategies directly are needed.

Cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients: Updates on clinical management

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication after liver transplantation, and it is associated with multiple direct and indirect effects. Management of CMV infection and disease has evolved over the years, and clinical guidelines have been recently updated. Universal antiviral prophylaxis and a pre-emptive treatment strategy are options for prevention. A currently-recruiting randomized clinical trial is comparing the efficacy and safety of the two prevention strategies in the highest risk D+R- liver recipients. Drug-resistant CMV infection remains uncommon but is now increasing in incidence. This highlights the currently limited therapeutic options, and the need for novel drug discoveries. Immunotherapy and antiviral drugs with novel mechanisms of action are being investigated, including letermovir (AIC246) and brincidofovir (CMX001). This article reviews the current state of CMV management after liver transplantation, including the updated practice guidelines, and summarizes the data on investigational drugs and vaccines in clinical development.

Management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common viral pathogens causing clinical disease in liver transplant recipients, and contributing to substantial morbidity and occasional mortality. CMV causes febrile illness often accompanied by bone marrow suppression, and in some cases, invades tissues including the transplanted liver allograft. In addition, CMV has been significantly associated with an increased predisposition to acute and chronic allograft rejection, accelerated hepatitis C recurrence, and other opportunistic infections, as well as reduced overall patient and allograft survival. To negate the adverse effects of CMV infection on transplant outcome, its prevention, whether through antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy, is an essential component to the management of liver transplant recipients. Two recently updated guidelines have suggested that antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy are similarly effective in preventing CMV disease in modest-risk CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients, while antiviral prophylaxis is the preferred strategy over preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV disease in high-risk recipients [CMV-seronegative recipients of liver allografts from CMV-seropositive donors (D+/R-)]. However, antiviral prophylaxis has only delayed the onset of CMV disease in many CMV D+/R- liver transplant recipients, and such occurrence of late-onset CMV disease was significantly associated with increased all-cause and infection-related mortality after liver transplantation. Therefore, a search for better strategies for prevention, such as prolonged duration of antiviral prophylaxis, a hybrid approach (antiviral prophylaxis followed by preemptive therapy), or the use of immunologic measures to guide antiviral prophylaxis has been suggested to prevent late-onset CMV disease. The standard treatment of CMV disease consists of intravenous ganciclovir or oral valganciclovir, and if feasible, reduction in pharmacologic immunosuppression. In one clinical trial, oral valganciclovir was as effective as intravenous ganciclovir for the treatment of mild to moderate CMV disease in solid organ (including liver) transplant recipients. The aim of this article is to provide a state-of-the art review of the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV infection and disease after liver transplantation.

Updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) continues to be one of the most common infections after solid-organ transplantation, resulting in significant morbidity, graft loss, and adverse outcomes. Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers but has been become more standardized by publication of consensus guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Section of The Transplantation Society. An international panel of experts was reconvened in October 2012 to revise and expand evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management, including diagnostics, immunology, prevention, treatment, drug resistance, and pediatric issues. The following report summarizes the recommendations.

Risk of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients on valganciclovir prophylaxis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Valganciclovir (VGC) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 as cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis except for liver transplant recipients because of their high incidence of CMV disease with this drug. However, surveys have shown its common off-label use for CMV prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. We aimed to evaluate the risk of CMV disease with VGC prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. All studies that evaluated liver transplant recipients and used VGC (900 or 450 mg daily) for the prevention of CMV disease were included. Five controlled studies (n = 483) were pooled with a random effects model; five single-arm studies (n = 380) were pooled for the prevalence rate of CMV disease. The risk of CMV disease with VGC versus ganciclovir was 1.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-3.29, P = 0.05, I(2) = 0%]. For high-risk (donor-positive/recipient-negative) patients, the risk of CMV disease was 1.96 (95% CI = 1.05-3.67, P = 0.035, I(2) = 0%). The risk of CMV disease remained significant with 900 mg of VGC daily (P = 0.04) but not with 450 mg of VGC daily (P = 0.76). The risk of leukopenia with VGC was 1.87 (95% CI = 1.03-3.37, P = 0.04, I(2) = 0%). In single-arm trials, the overall CMV disease rate was 12% (95% CI = 9%-16%, P < 0.001), and the rate for high-risk patients was 20% (95% CI = 10%-38%, P = 0.002). In conclusion, 900 mg of VGC daily may not be safe as CMV prophylaxis in high-risk liver transplant recipients because of the significant 2-fold increase in the risk of CMV disease and the 1.9-fold increase in the risk of leukopenia. Alternative CMV prophylaxis should be used for liver transplant recipients.

[Prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplantation]

CMV prevention strategies in liver transplant recipients should be stratified according to serological status. In donor (D)-/recipient (R)- combinations, no prophylaxis or preemptive therapy is recommended. In the remaining combinations, the most widely used strategies are universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. Both strategies are effective compared with placebo but have not been compared with each other in well-designed clinical trials. Preemptive therapy is the preferred strategy in low-risk patients while prophylaxis is the most widely used option in those at high-risk. Delayed CMV disease is an adverse consequence of universal prophylaxis. Prolongation of prophylaxis from 100 to 200 days does not reduce the incidence of CMV disease. CMV-specific cell mediated immunity, facilitated by preemptive therapy and delayed by prophylaxis, has a therapeutic effect by reducing CMV replication. The drug of choice in both strategies is valganciclovir but the duration and dose differ. When preemptive therapy is used, viremia monitoring is required for the first 4 months. The technique of choice is quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Given the lack of conclusive data, the choice of one or other strategy in these patients should be individualized in each patient and center according to the available resources and possibilities of follow-up.