Cost-effectiveness of Preemptive Therapy Versus Prophylaxis in a Randomized Clinical Trial for the Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Seronegative Liver Transplant Recipients With Seropositive Donors

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.

Disparities in Access to Valganciclovir Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in High-Risk African American Kidney Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

While access and outcomes disparities for African American (AA) kidney transplant recipients are documented, there are limited studies assessing medication access disparities in transplantation. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) causes severe complications for transplant recipients, and we aimed to understand differences in access to CMV prophylaxis valganciclovir and its impact on CMV infection rates in AA transplant recipients.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective longitudinal cohort study examined high-risk (CMV serostatus D+/R-) adult kidney transplant recipients between June 1, 2010, and May 31, 202, through EMR abstraction. Standard univariate comparative statistics were employed alongside binary logistic regression for multivariable modeling.

RESULTS

During the 10 year period, 418 kidney transplant recipients were included, with 179 (42.8%) identified as AA and 239 as non-AA. There were significant differences in mean age (p = 0.001) and private versus Medicaid insurance status (p < 0.001). AAs experienced higher death-censored graft loss rates (10.6% AA vs. 5.0% non-AA, p = 0.031). CMV infection rate, opportunistic infection rate, leukopenia incidence, and death did not differ significantly between AA and non-AA patients. AA patients were 42% less likely to receive valganciclovir out-of-pocket cost assistance compared to non-AA patients (OR 0.58, [0.379-0.892], p = 0.013). When incorporating age, Medicaid status, and donor marginality in a multivariable model, the impact of AA race on utilizing assistance programs became statistically non-significant (OR 0.70, [0.448-1.094], p = 0.118).

CONCLUSIONS

AAs were significantly less likely to leverage assistance programs or utilize personal resources to access valganciclovir. This disparity was partially explained by age, insurance status, and donor type. Despite this, CMV infection rates were similar between AA and non-AA cohorts.

Management of cytomegalovirus in adult solid organ transplant patients: GESITRA-IC-SEIMC, CIBERINFEC, and SET recommendations update

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a significant challenge in solid organ transplantation (SOT). The last international consensus guidelines on the management of CMV in SOT were published in 2018, highlighting the need for revision to incorporate recent advances, notably in cell-mediated immunity monitoring, which could alter the current standard of care. A working group including members from the Group for the Study of Infection in Transplantation and the Immunocompromised Host (GESITRA-IC) of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) and the Spanish Society of Transplantation (SET), developed consensus-based recommendations for managing CMV infection in SOT recipients. Recommendations were classified based on evidence strength and quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The final recommendations were endorsed through a consensus meeting and approved by the expert panel.

Management of cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the primary causes of morbidity and mortality following liver transplantation (LT). Based on current worldwide guidelines, the most effective strategies for avoiding post-transplant CMV infection are antiviral prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment. CMV- IgG serology is the established technique for pretransplant screening of both donors and recipients. The clinical presentation of CMV infection and disease exhibits variability, prompting clinicians to consistently consider this possibility, particularly within the first year post-transplantation or subsequent to heightened immunosuppression. At annual symposia to discuss CMV prevention and how treatment outcomes can be improved, evidence on the incorporation of immune functional tests into clinical practice is presented, and the results of studies with new antiviral treatments are evaluated. Although there are ongoing studies on the use of letermovir and maribavir in solid organ transplantation, a consensus reflected in the guidelines has not been formed. Determining the most appropriate strategy at the individual level appears to be the key to enhancing outcomes. Although prevention strategies reduce the risk of CMV disease, the disease can still occur in up to 50% of high-risk patients. A balance between the risk of infection and disease development and the use of immunosuppressants must be considered when talking about the proper management of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. The objective of this study was to establish a comprehensive framework for the management of CMV in patients who have had LT.

A practical guide to real-world implementation of pre-emptive therapy for Cytomegalovirus disease prevention in high-risk seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors

The Comparison of Antiviral Preventative Strategies In Liver Transplant (CAPSIL) study showed pre-emptive therapy (PET) to be superior to antiviral prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in high-risk CMV seronegative liver transplant recipients (LTRs) with seropositive donors (D+R-). Despite the statistical superiority of PET over prophylaxis in research settings, PET is perceived as a logistically more complex strategy that requires careful coordination of weekly CMV PCR testing, prompt initiation of CMV antivirals upon viremia detection, and timely cessation of antivirals following viremia resolution. Transplant centers may be hesitant to use PET for CMV disease prevention in D+R- LTRs out of concern that PET coordination is not feasible in clinical practice. We recently described our experience using PET in CMV D+R- LTRs in a real-world setting, and found it to be as effective for CMV disease prevention as PET performed as part of a clinical trial. Here, we describe a systematic approach for PET implementation in real-world settings and provide practical tools to address anticipated challenges. This framework can support transplant programs in overcoming logistical barriers to PET and incorporating an evidence-based and cost-effective CMV prevention strategy into routine care for high-risk CMV D+R- LTRs.

Pre-Transplant Frequencies of FoxP3+CD25+ in CD3+CD8+ T Cells as Potential Predictors for CMV in CMV-Intermediate Risk Kidney Transplant Recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection detrimentally influences graft survival in kidney transplant recipients, with the risk primarily determined by recipient and donor serostatus. However, recipient CD8+ T cells play a crucial role in CMV control. The optimal preventive strategy (prophylaxis vs. pre-emptive treatment), particularly for seropositive (intermediate risk) recipients, remains uncertain. We investigated CD8+ T cell subpopulation dynamics and CMV occurrence (DNAemia ≥ 100 IU/mL) in 65 kidney transplant recipients, collecting peripheral blood mononuclear cells before (T1) and 1 year after transplantation (T2). Comparing the two timepoints, we found an increase in granulocyte, monocyte and CD3+CD8+ T cells numbers, while FoxP3+CD25+, LAG-3+ and PD-1+ frequencies were reduced at T2. CMV DNAemia occurred in 33 recipients (55.8%) during the first year. Intermediate risk patients were disproportionally affected by posttransplant CMV (N = 29/45, 64.4%). Intermediate risk recipients developing CMV after transplantation exhibited lower leukocyte, monocyte, and granulocyte counts and higher FoxP3+CD25+ frequencies in CD3+CD8+ T cells pre-transplantation compared to patients staying CMV negative. Pre-transplant FoxP3+CD25+ in CD3+CD8+ T cells had the best discriminatory potential for CMV infection prediction within the first year after transplantation (AUC: 0.746). The FoxP3+CD25+ CD3+CD8+ T cell subset may aid in selecting intermediate risk kidney transplant recipients for CMV prophylaxis.

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.

Cytomegalovirus related hospitalization costs among hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant recipients treated with maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy: A US-based study

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients impose a significant health care resource utilization (HCRU)-related economic burden. Maribavir (MBV), a novel anti-viral therapy (AVT), approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for post-transplant CMV infections refractory (with/without resistance) to conventional AVTs has demonstrated lower hospital length of stay (LOS) versus investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valgancilovir, ganciclovir, foscarnet, or cidofovir) in a phase 3 trial (SOLSTICE). This study estimated the HCRU costs of MBV versus IAT.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to estimate HCRU costs for patients treated with MBV or IAT. Mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HCRU costs were calculated using (i) annualized mean hospital LOS in SOLSTICE, and (ii) CMV-related direct costs from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte-Carlo simulations assessed model robustness.

RESULTS

Of 352 randomized patients receiving MBV (n = 235) or IAT (n = 117) for 8 weeks in SOLSTICE, 40% had HSCT and 60% had SOT. Mean overall PPPY HCRU costs of overall hospital-LOS were $67,205 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $33,767, $231,275) versus $145,501 (95% CI: $62,064, $589,505) for MBV and IAT groups, respectively. Mean PPPY ICU and non-ICU stay costs were: $32,231 (95% CI: $5,248, $184,524) versus $45,307 (95% CI: $3,957, $481,740) for MBV and IAT groups, and $82,237 (95% CI: $40,397, $156,945) MBV versus $228,329 (95% CI: $94,442, $517,476) for MBV and IAT groups, respectively. MBV demonstrated cost savings in over 99.99% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that Mean PPPY HCRU costs were 29%-64% lower with MBV versus other-AVTs.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Optimized CMV Preemptive Therapy and Antiviral Prophylaxis for CMV Disease Prevention in CMV High-Risk (D+R-) Kidney Transplant Recipients

The optimal strategy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in CMV donor/recipient kidney transplant recipients remains uncertain. Conclusions of prior meta-analyses that CMV disease rates with preemptive therapy (PET) and universal prophylaxis (UP) were comparable may have been affected by inclusion of studies lacking key determinants of efficacy of the respective strategies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of PET with weekly CMV polymerase chain reaction monitoring for ≥3 mo and UP with 6 mo of valganciclovir. PubMed and Embase databases were reviewed from January 1, 2010, to April 1, 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with 3 instruments (Cochrane RoB, Cochrane RoBINS-I, and an instrument for assessing risk in observational studies). The primary outcome was CMV disease incidence by 1-y posttransplant. Secondary outcomes by 1-y were graft loss, acute allograft rejection, and mortality. Results were synthesized using generalized linear mixed model meta-analysis. PET studies were stratified into low-threshold (LT) and high-threshold (HT) PET based on the viral load threshold for initiation of antiviral therapy.

Results

Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria (6 PET, 19 UP). CMV disease incidence was significantly higher in HT (0.30 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.39]) versus LT PET (0.06 [95% CI, 0.03-0.12]). LT PET was associated with a significantly lower CMV disease incidence (0.06 [95% CI, 0.03-0.12]) versus UP (0.21 [95% CI, 0.17-0.27]). Incidence of graft loss, acute allograft rejection, or mortality was not significantly different between LT PET and UP (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Receipt of lymphocyte-depleting antibodies was not associated with a significant difference in CMV disease incidence (odds ratio = 1.34 [95% CI, 0.80-2.25]).

Conclusions

LT PET is associated with a significantly lower incidence of CMV disease compared to UP with similar rates of other clinical outcomes. These findings provide rationale and preliminary data for a randomized superiority trial of optimized LT-PET versus UP in donor seropositive recipient seronegative kidney transplant recipients.

Current Perspectives on the Management of Herpesvirus Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at high risk of human herpesvirus (HHV)-related morbidity and mortality due to the use of immunosuppressive therapy. We aim to increase awareness and understanding of HHV disease burden in SOTRs by providing an overview of current prevention and management strategies as described in the literature and guidelines. We discuss challenges in both prevention and treatment as well as future perspectives.

Cytomegalovirus infection in transplant recipients: newly approved additions to our armamentarium

BACKGROUND

The burden that cytomegalovirus (CMV) portends for haematopoietic and solid-organ transplant recipients cannot be understated. Valganciclovir and ganciclovir have successfully been used for prevention and treatment of CMV infections, although with serious side effects such as leucopenia and some development of resistance. Until recently, available therapies for ganciclovir-resistant CMV have significant toxicities. Although advances have been made in the field, the unmet medical needs for effective and well-tolerated therapies are significant.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to summarise the current and emerging CMV antiviral drugs and discusses future perspectives in the field.

SOURCES

We searched for relevant articles with pertinent keywords: "Cytomegalovirus OR CMV", "Transplant" and "Antiviral". Articles published after 2019 were given preference. Articles were reviewed by the authors for relevance and impact to the subject of interest.

CONTENT

We outline in this review current advances in prophylaxis of CMV infection with letermovir, breakthrough CMV infections while on or after prophylaxis, the development of resistant and refractory CMV infections, and the newly approved anti-CMV agent, maribavir, in haematopoietic and solid-organ transplant recipients.

IMPLICATIONS

Prevention of CMV infections after transplant has improved greatly over the past few years. Despite major advancements, breakthrough CMV infections and development of refractory and resistant CMV infections remain major complications post transplantation. We highlight emerging therapeutics that tolerably and effectively prevent and treat CMV infections, especially refractory and resistant cases.

Antiviral toxicities in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

Prophylaxis with valganciclovir (VGCV) is used routinely to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in at-risk pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, the rate and factors associated with toxicities in this population are not well-described. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children undergoing SOT at our hospital from January 2012-June 2018. We evaluated the frequency of hematologic and renal toxicities from day 15 through 1-year post-SOT in relation to antiviral exposures, focused on VGCV prophylaxis. Marginal rate models were used to determine the risk of kidney injury and neutropenia in relation to VGCV prophylaxis. Among 281 SOTs, VGCV prophylaxis was administered on 20.1% of all follow-up days. The incidence rates of kidney injury, leukopenia, and neutropenia were significantly higher during VGCV prophylaxis compared to when no antiviral agents were given. Using multivariable marginal rate models, receipt of VGCV prophylaxis was associated with development of kidney injury (rate ratio [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-2.65) and neutropenia (RR 4.82, 95% CI: 3.08-7.55). VGCV dosing did not impact the development of kidney injury or neutropenia. Toxicities are common with VGCV prophylaxis in pediatric SOT recipients.

Antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To conduct a meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the outcomes of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in liver transplant (LT) recipients.

METHODS

We searched databases for qualified studies up until March 2022. Finally, a meta-analysis was carried out using a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

With a total of 1834 LT patients, the pooled incidence of CMV infection and CMV disease in the overall LT recipients using antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy were 24.7% vs. 40.4% and 6.4% vs. 9.4%, respectively. Our meta-analysis exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of CMV infection due to antiviral prophylaxis when compared to preemptive therapy in the high-risk group (OR: 6.67, 95% CI: 1.73, 25.66; p = 0.006). In contrast, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of late-onset of CMV disease in preemptive therapy compared to antiviral prophylaxis in the high-risk group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.74; p = 0.009). However, the incidence of CMV disease, allograft rejection, graft loss, drug related adverse effects, opportunistic infections and mortality did not differ significantly between both the interventions (all p> 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found the use of antiviral prophylaxis, compared with preemptive therapy, is superior in controlling CMV infection and prolonging the time to CMV disease in LT recipients without an increased risk of opportunistic infections, allograft rejection, graft loss, drug related adverse effects, development of drug resistance, and mortality.

Human cytomegalovirus: a survey of end-organ diseases and diagnostic challenges in solid organ transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most important infectious complications in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Therefore, early detection and prompt treatment are imperative to improve transplant outcomes. This article highlights the clinical characteristics of the most common CMV end-organ diseases in SOT recipients and their diagnostic modalities and challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

CMV can cause a variety of end-organ diseases in SOT recipients. Although CMV nucleic acid amplification by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is frequently employed to detect CMV reactivation or infection, its predictive value for various CMV end-organ diseases remains uncertain. Given the limitation of PCR or other noninvasive tests, confirmation of CMV end-organ disease may require tissue biopsy, which may not be feasible or available, or may cause untoward complications.

SUMMARY

The utility of PCR to diagnose CMV end-organ disease is limited. As CMV can infect any organ system(s), clinicians caring for SOT recipients need to maintain vigilance for any signs and symptoms of end-organ disease to allow early recognition and prompt treatment. Invasive procedures might be needed to confirm the diagnosis and minimize the empirical use of antiviral therapy that may have substantial drug toxicities.

CMV infection and management among pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, the impact of asymptomatic CMV infections (ie, DNAemia) on clinical outcomes is not well established.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of children undergoing first SOT at our institution from January 2012 to June 2018. We evaluated the epidemiology of CMV infections and performed multivariable Cox regression to assess the association between CMV DNAemia without disease or CMV disease (syndrome or end-organ disease) on negative outcomes (death, re-transplantation, or moderate/severe rejection) within the first year after SOT.

RESULTS

Among 271 individuals, 43 (15.9%) developed ≥1 CMV infection during the first year after SOT. There were 56 unique CMV infections including 14 episodes of CMV disease. In 167 patients offered CMV prophylaxis, only 8 (4.8%) developed their first CMV DNAemia episode while on prophylaxis 32 developed CMV DNAemia after prophylaxis completion; only 1 episode of CMV disease occurred while on antiviral prophylaxis. When accounting for receipt of ATG, oral steroids, and number of immunosuppressives on a given day, CMV disease was more strongly associated with negative outcomes (Hazard Ratio (HR): 3.28, 95% CI: 0.73-14.64; p = .12) than CMV DNAemia without disease (HR 1.42, 95% CI: 0.19- 10.79; p = .74), although not to a statistically significant degree.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CMV infections occurred after completion of antiviral prophylaxis. CMV disease was more strongly associated with negative outcomes than asymptomatic CMV DNAemia and should be the focus of CMV prevention practices.

Characteristics of viral pneumonia in the COVID-19 era: an update

Influenza virus, rhinovirus, and adenovirus frequently cause viral pneumonia, an important cause of morbidity and mortality especially in the extreme ages of life. During the last two decades, three outbreaks of coronavirus-associated pneumonia, namely Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome, and the ongoing Coronavirus Infectious Disease—2019 (COVID-19) were reported. The rate of diagnosis of viral pneumonia is increasingly approaching 60% among children identified as having community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Clinical presentation ranges from mild to severe pneumonitis complicated by respiratory failure in severe cases. The most vulnerable patients, the elderly and those living with cancer, report a relevant mortality rate. No clinical characteristics can be useful to conclusively distinguish the different etiology of viral pneumonia. However, accessory symptoms, such as anosmia or ageusia together with respiratory symptoms suggest COVID-19. An etiologic-based treatment of viral pneumonia is possible in a small percentage of cases only. Neuraminidase inhibitors have been proven to reduce the need for ventilatory support and mortality rate while only a few data support the large-scale use of other antivirals. A low-middle dose of dexamethasone and heparin seems to be effective in COVID-19 patients, but data regarding their possible efficacy in viral pneumonia caused by other viruses are conflicting. In conclusion, viral pneumonia is a relevant cause of CAP, whose interest is increasing due to the current COVID-19 outbreak. To set up a therapeutic approach is difficult because of the low number of active molecules and the conflicting data bearing supportive treatments such as steroids.