The value of pre-emptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:1357-1361. [PMID: 22664015 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.11.067]

What is the optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent postoperative infectious complications after liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is well-accepted in the liver transplant (LT) setting. Nevertheless, optimal regimens to prevent bacterial, viral, and fungal infections are not defined.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent post-LT bacterial, fungal, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections, to improve short-term outcomes, and to provide international expert panel recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021244976.

RESULTS

Of 1853 studies screened, 34 were included for this review. Bacterial, CMV, and fungal antimicrobial prophylaxis were evaluated separately. Pneumocystis jiroveccii pneumonia (PJP) antimicrobial prophylaxis was analyzed separately from other fungal infections. Overall, eight randomized controlled trials, 21 comparative studies, and five observational noncomparative studies were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is recommended to prevent bacterial, CMV, and fungal infection to improve outcomes after LT. Universal antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to prevent postoperative bacterial infections. The choice of antibiotics should be individualized and length of therapy should not exceed 24 hours (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Both universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are strongly recommended for CMV prevention following LT. The choice of one or the other strategy will depend on individual program resources and experiences, as well as donor and recipient serostatus. (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Antifungal prophylaxis is strongly recommended for LT recipients at high risk of developing invasive fungal infections. The drug of choice remains controversial. (Quality of Evidence; High | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). PJP prophylaxis is strongly recommended. Length of prophylaxis remains controversial. (Quality of Evidence; Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

Use of Viral Load as a Surrogate Marker in Clinical Studies of Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has been the standard endpoint for clinical trials in organ transplant recipients. Viral load may be a more relevant endpoint due to low frequency of disease. We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. We found several lines of evidence to support the validity of viral load as an appropriate surrogate end-point, including the following: (1) viral loads in CMV disease are significantly greater than in asymptomatic viremia (odds ratio, 9.3 95% confidence interval, 4.6-19.3); (2) kinetics of viral replication are strongly associated with progression to disease; (3) pooled incidence of CMV viremia and disease is significantly lower during prophylaxis compared with the full patient follow-up period (viremia incidence: 3.2% vs 34.3%; P < .001) (disease incidence: 1.1% vs 13.0%; P < .001); (4) treatment of viremia prevented disease; and (5) viral load decline correlated with symptom resolution. Based on the analysis, we conclude that CMV load is an appropriate surrogate endpoint for CMV trials in organ transplant recipients.

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.

Prophylaxis versus pre-emptive treatment for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients

This study compared the pre-emptive and the prophylactic strategies used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients and searched for associated predictive factors. Seventy-three orthotopic liver-transplant recipients who had received a transplant before November 2005 were given ganciclovir IV pre-emptively (group I) and 56 recipients who had received a transplant after November 2005 were given prophylactic valganciclovir for 3 months (group II). Demographic and biochemical parameters did not statistically vary between the groups at baseline. Monitoring of CMV DNAemia was similar in both groups. Forty-two (57.5%) patients presented with CMV infection in group I and 18 (32.1%) in group II (P < 0.004). CMV DNAemia was first detected at a median of 33 days post-transplant in group I and at 98.5 days in group II (P < 0.003), but viral loads were not significantly different. The overall incidence of CMV disease was 9.6% in group I versus 7.1% in group II (ns). Thirty-five (47.9%) patients presented with biopsy-proven acute rejection in group I and 13 (23.2%) in group II (P = 0.004). Forty (55%) patients in group I and 25 (44.6%) in group II presented with de novo post-transplant diabetes (P = 0.057). At 1-year post-transplant, global survival curves were not significantly different. Independent factors associated with CMV reactivation were an absence of CMV prophylaxis, CMV serological status of the donor, cold ischemia time, and HLA A + B + DR compatibility. CMV prophylaxis is efficacious and can prevent safely the direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients.