Cytomegalovirus pp65 antigen-guided preemptive therapy with ganciclovir in solid organ transplant recipients: a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

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.

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

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

A double-blinded, prospective study to define antigenemia and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction cutoffs to start preemptive therapy in low-risk, seropositive, renal transplanted recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease occurs in 16% to 20% of low-risk, CMV-positive renal transplant recipients. The cutoffs for quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) or phosphoprotein (pp65) antigenemia (pp65emia) for starting preemptive therapy have not been well established.

METHODS

We measured qPCR and pp65emia weekly from day 7 to day 120 after transplantation, in anti-CMV immunoglobulin G–positive donor and recipient pairs. Patients and physicians were blinded to the test results. Suspicion of CMV disease led to the order of new tests. In asymptomatic viremic patients, the highest pp65emia and qPCR values were used, whereas we considered the last value before diagnosis in those with CMV disease.

RESULTS

We collected a total of 1,481 blood samples from 102 adult patients. Seventeen patients developed CMV disease, 54 presented at least one episode of viremia that cleared spontaneously, and 31 never presented viremia. Five patients developed CMV disease after the end of the study period. The median (95% confidence interval) pp65emia and qPCR values were higher before CMV disease than during asymptomatic viremia (6 [9–82] vs. 3 [1–14] cells/10(6) cells; P<0.001 and 3,080 [1,263–15,605] vs. 258 [258–1,679] copies/mL; P=0.008, respectively). The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that pp65emia 4 cells/10(6) cells or greater showed a sensitivity and specificity to predict CMV disease of 69% and 81%, respectively (area, 0.769; P=0.001), with a positive predictive value of 37% and a negative predictive value of 93%. For qPCR 2,000 copies/mL or higher, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 57% and 91%, respectively (receiver operating characteristic area, 0.782; P=0.000).

CONCLUSION

With these cutoffs, both methods are appropriate for detecting CMV disease.

Rapid detection and quantitation of ganciclovir resistance in cytomegalovirus quasispecies

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) may cause severe or fatal disease among immunocompromised patients. The first line prophylaxis and systemic HCMV disease therapy is ganciclovir (GCV). The presence of GCV-resistant virus has been linked to fatal HCMV disease. The implementation of rapid and sensitive techniques for the early detection and monitoring of GCV-resistance may be helpful to support antiviral therapy management. A pyrosequencing assay for the detection and quantitation of the most frequent mutations conferring moderate- and high-grade GCV resistance was implemented. The pyrosequencing achieved an analytical sensitivity for adequate interpretation of ≥10(3)  copies/ml. The assay was validated with 18 whole blood samples taken over a 6-month period from an umbilical cord blood recipient infected persistently with HCMV and allowed the detection and monitoring of the M460I and A594V GCV-resistant mutations. The percentage of resistant quasispecies ranged from 7.9% to 55.2% for the M460I mutation and from 19.8% to 43% for the A594V mutation. Clearance of the M460I mutation occurred in parallel with a decrease in the HCMV viremia, while the A594V mutation persisted. The pyrosequencing method for detection of GCV is sensitive enough to be used directly on clinical samples for the early identification of resistance mutations and allows the quantitation of resistant and wild type virus quasispecies within hours. The quantitation of minor resistant variants is an important issue to understand their relationship with viral load modification, and potentially anticipate treatment adjustment.

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.

Overview of the diagnosis of cytomegalovirus infection

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is recognized as the most common congenital viral infection in humans and an important cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised hosts. This recognition of the clinical importance of invasive CMV disease in the setting of immunodeficiency and in children with congenital CMV infection has led to the development of new diagnostic procedures for the rapid identification of CMV. Diagnosis of acute maternal CMV infection by the presence of immunoglobulin (Ig)M and low-avidity IgG requires confirmation of fetal infection, which is typically performed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for CMV on amniotic fluid. Viral culture of the urine and saliva obtained within the first two weeks of life continues to be the gold standard for diagnosis of congenitally-infected infants. PCR assays of dried blood spots from newborns have been shown to lack sufficient sensitivity for the identification of most neonates with congenital CMV infection for universal screening purposes. However, saliva PCR assays are currently being assessed as a useful screening method for congenital CMV infection. In the immunocompromised host, newer rapid diagnostic assays, such as phosphoprotein 65 antigenemia and CMV real-time PCR of blood or plasma have allowed for preemptive treatment, reducing morbidity and mortality. However, lack of standardized real-time PCR protocols hinders the comparison of data from different centers and the development of uniform guidelines for the management of invasive CMV infections in immunocompromised individuals.

Living donor liver transplantations in HIV- and hepatitis C virus-coinfected hemophiliacs: experience in a single center

BACKGROUND

Although almost all human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected Japanese hemophiliacs are coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), the outcome of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in such patients in terms of survival rate, perioperative complications, and recovery of coagulation activity is poorly understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Six HIV-positive hemophiliacs underwent LDLT for HCV-associated advanced cirrhosis. The mean CD4 T-cell count at transplantation was 376±227/μL.

RESULTS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 66%, 66%, and 50%, respectively. Fatal perioperative bleeding related to hemophilia was not observed. Two patients died within 6 months after transplantation due to graft failure. HIV infection was well controlled in all patients who survived longer than 6 months. Two patients (genotype 2a and 2+3a) achieved a sustained viral response and both of them were alive at the end of follow-up period, whereas one patient (genotype 1a+1b) died of decompensated cirrhosis 4 years after transplantation due to recurrent HCV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV/HCV-coinfected hemophiliacs can safely undergo LDLT. Hemophilia was clinically cured after successful transplantation. A good outcome can be expected as long as postoperative hepatitis C is controlled with interferon/ribavirin combination therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of a new combined immunosuppressive and anti-infectious regimen in kidney transplantation

Objectives:The aims of this study were to assess the 1-year cost-effectiveness of a new combined immunosuppressive and anti-infectious regimen in kidney transplantation to prevent both rejection and infectious complications.

Methods:Patients (pts) transplanted from January 2000 to March 2003 (Group A) and treated with a conventional protocol were compared with pts submitted to a combined regimen including universal cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis between April 2003 and July 2005 (Group B). Costs were computed from the hospital accounting system for hospital stays, and official tariffs for outpatient visits. Patients with incomplete costs data were excluded from analysis.

Results:Fifty-three patients were analyzed in Group A, and 60 in Group B. Baseline characteristics including CMV serostatus were not significantly different between the two groups. Over 12 months after transplantation, acute rejections decreased from 41.5 percent in Group A to 6.7 percent in Group B (p&lt; .001), and CMV infections from 47 percent to 15 percent (p&lt; .001). Overall, readmissions decreased from 68 percent to 55 percent (p= .160), and average hospital days from 28 ± 19 to 20 ± 11 days (p&lt; .007). The average number of outpatient visits decreased from 49 ± 10 to 39 ± 8 (p&lt; .001). Average 1-year immunosuppressive and CMV prophylaxis costs (per patient) increased from CHF20,402 ± 7,273 to 27,375 ± 6,063 (p&lt; .001), graft rejection costs decreased from CHF4,595 ± 10,182 to 650 ± 3,167 (p= .005), CMV treatment costs from CHF2,270 ± 6,161 to 101 ± 326 (p= .008), and outpatient visits costs from CHF8,466 ± 1’721 to 6,749 ± 1,159 (p&lt; .001). Altogether, 1-year treatment costs decreased from CHF39’957 ± 16,573 to 36,204 ± 6,901 (p= .115).

Conclusions: The new combined regimen administered in Group B was significantly more effective, and its additional costs were more than offset by savings associated with complications avoidance.

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.

The use of consensus guidelines for management of cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection imposes a significant economic burden on susceptible patients after renal transplantation. Our study was conducted to determine the prediction, probability, consequences, and treatment costs of CMV infection under Canadian consensus guidelines in 270 sequential transplant patients. Transplant patients from donors positive (D(+)) for CMV into recipients negative (R(-)) for CMV received antiviral prophylaxis for 14 weeks and all but donor negative (D(-))/R(-) patients were monitored weekly for the CMVpp65 marker expression. Marker-positive patients and patients with CMV infection or disease received antiviral treatment. Within the first 6 months, 27% of the 270 patients tested had incidences of asymptomatic CMV infection, while 9% had CMV syndrome or disease. Only 1% of patients had infection after 6 months. The CMVpp65 marker levels were significantly greater in patients with syndrome or disease; but post-test probabilities and predictive value of the marker assay were low. Mean direct costs for care were $2256 and ranged from $927 for D(-)/R(-) patients to $7069 in the D(+)/R(-) patients. Extension of antiviral prophylaxis to D(+) or D(+)/R(+) patients significantly increased the estimated mean costs for an absolute reduction to 4% in CMV syndrome or disease. Our studies show that current guidelines for treatment enable effective control of CMV infection; however, alternative strategies have different economic impact.

Prophylaxis and treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of solid organ transplants: current approach and future challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cytomegalovirus infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in solid-organ transplant recipients, in terms of cytomegalovirus disease itself and the associated outcomes of organ rejection and death. This review focuses on recent literature concerning prevention and treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two major strategies for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients - preemptive and prophylactic treatment - are reviewed. Both strategies result in a lower incidence of cytomegalovirus disease when compared to a 'wait and treat' approach, and are generally considered cost-effective. Neither prophylaxis nor preemption has yet been shown to be superior. Newer trials are also reviewed, which are beginning to evaluate protocols of preemption or prophylaxis representative of current practice, as well as to explore alternative dosing strategies, the benefits of cytomegalovirus immune globulin, and the potential benefit of a longer course of prophylaxis. Concerns for the selection of ganciclovir-resistant strains of cytomegalovirus are also addressed.

SUMMARY

The consensus is that there is benefit for the treatment of solid-organ transplant patients with an antiviral agent before clinical evidence of cytomegalovirus disease. So far, there has been no demonstration of the superiority of prophylactic or preemptive regimens, nor has the exact nature and dosing of the oral antiviral agent of choice been established.

Preventing post-organ transplantation cytomegalovirus disease with ganciclovir: a meta-analysis comparing prophylactic and preemptive therapies

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) causes significant morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients, but there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate prevention method. The goal of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of universal prophylaxis and preemption using ganciclovir.

METHODS

Literature searches for randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of ganciclovir prophylaxis and preemption were conducted. Because of the lack of head-to-head trials, indirect comparisons of meta-analyses of the prevention strategies were performed. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model to estimate the overall risk ratios for various clinical outcomes. We assessed the event rates for control groups across the trials for comparability.

RESULTS

Literature searches identified 17 universal prophylaxis trials and 9 preemption trials with 1560 and 457 subjects, respectively. Overall event rates for CMV disease in control groups across the studies were similar (approximately 26%). The relative risk of CMV disease in prophylaxis trials was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.48) when trials of patients with prophylaxis of short duration and trials that only evaluated patients with high-risk serostatus were excluded. The relative risk of CMV disease for study subjects in all preemption trials was 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.60), compared with that for control subjects. There was no statistically significant difference in CMV disease between prevention strategies. Similarly, no differences between strategies were found for all-cause mortality or rejection. There were insufficient data to adequately evaluate graft loss and opportunistic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of indirect comparisons of meta-analyses of prevention strategies, universal prophylaxis and preemption are equally effective in reducing the incidence of CMV disease.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The case for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in solid organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies have been debated for the past decade. This review argues in favour of the prophylaxis strategy. Clinical trials comparing prophylaxis to pre-emptive therapy have, thus far, had insufficient power to differentiate strategies, especially with regard to the indirect effects of CMV. From meta-analyses, prospective trials, observational studies, and case control studies, there is evidence that prophylaxis prevents cytomegalovirus infection and disease, reduces the indirect effects of cytomegalovirus, including organ rejection and transplant associated, all cause mortality as well as opportunistic infection, and even bacteremia as well as post transplant lymphoproliferative disease. Prophylaxis has also been shown to be cost effective. One must recognise that with the current prophylaxis regimens employed for 3 months post-transplantation, late onset cases of cytomegalovirus disease may occur. Cytomegalovirus replication monitoring may be necessary after cessation of prophylaxis, especially in the high risk cytomegalovirus seropositive donor to cytomegalovirus seronegative recipient. Future trials with longer periods of prophylaxis are being undertaken.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Does Valganciclovir Hydrochloride (Valcyte) Provide Effective Prophylaxis Against Cytomegalovirus Infection in Liver Transplant Recipients?

INTRODUCTION

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after solid organ transplantation is one of the most common viral infections, causing significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly. Ganciclovir has proven to be effective for the prophylaxis and treatment of CMV. However, oral absorption of ganciclovir is poor. Recently, oral administration of valganciclovir hydrochloride (Valcyte) has been observed to display 10-fold better absorption than oral ganciclovir. Valganciclovir has increasingly been used as prophylaxis against CMV after solid organ transplantation. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of valganciclovir prophylaxis therapy after primary liver transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2001 and May 2003, 203 consecutive liver transplant recipients, including 129 men and 74 women of overall mean age 53 +/- 11 years, received valganciclovir (900 mg/d or 450 mg every other day depending on renal function) for 3 to 6 months after primary liver transplantation. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Mean follow-up was 19 +/- 5.8 months. CMV DNA in peripheral blood was tested using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. Symptomatic CMV was stratified according to the CMV immunoglobulin (Ig)G status of the donor and recipient at the time of liver transplantation. Donors and recipients were classified preoperatively into groups according to the presence or absence of CMV as follows: group 1 (n = 73; donor CMV+, recipient CMV+); group 2 (n = 41; donor CMV-, recipient CMV+); group 3 (n = 54; donor CMV+, recipient CMV-; high-risk group); and group 4 (n = 35; donor CMV-, recipient CMV-).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (14.3%) developed symptomatic CMV disease at 169 +/- 117 days after liver transplantation: group 1, 16.4% versus group 2, 7.3% versus group 3, 25.9% versus group 4, 0%. Of these patients, 5 also had invasive CMV on liver biopsy, which was performed owing to abnormal liver functions. All 29 patients were treated with intravenous ganciclovir. One patient died owing to disseminated CMV, whereas the remaining 28 patients responded to treatment. Interestingly, 8 patients, including 1 who had invasive CMV hepatitis, developed symptomatic CMV within 90 days of liver transplantation even while on prophylactic valganciclovir.

CONCLUSION

Valganciclovir failed to provide adequate prophylaxis following liver transplantation in our patients. The overall rate of CMV in seropositive donors and/or recipients was 17%, and in the high-risk group was 26%. Further prospective studies with measurement of ganciclovir concentrations are needed to elucidate the reasons for this unexpected failure.

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

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

Monitoring for human cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant recipients through antigenemia and glycoprotein N (gN) variants: evidence of correlation and potential prognostic value of gN genotypes

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) ORF UL73 encodes the envelope glycoprotein gpUL73-gN, which shows seven genotypes (gN-1, gN-2, gN-3a, gN-3b, gN-4a, gN-4b, gN-4c). The goal of this study was to determine retrospectively the distribution of gN variants in solid organ transplant recipients with HCMV infection and to establish an association with parameters important for monitoring post-transplantation clinical course during a follow-up of up to 2 years. Peripheral blood leukocytes from 40 solid organ transplant recipients were analysed for pp65-antigen by immunofluorescence and gN genotyped by sequencing or RFLP analysis. A correlation between gN genotypes and antigenemia peak was found, showing a highly significant difference between gN-1 and gN-4b variants (P<0.005). In particular, gN-1 seems to be associated with patients developing low level antigenemia (<50 pp65-positive cells/2 x 10(5) PBLs; PPV = 90%), whereas gN-4b predicts significantly higher values (>50 pp65-positive cells/2 x 10(5) PBLs; PPV = 80%). Furthermore, the onset of positive antigenemia is significantly earlier in patients infected with a gN-4b strain, compared with those infected by a gN-1 variant. Reported data further support a role for gN genotypes in HCMV pathogenesis. gN-1 and gN-4b show a significantly different virulence and could serve as early predictors for the progression of HCMV infection in transplant patients.

CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION IN ORGAN-TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS: DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF PP65 ANTIGEN TEST, QUALITATIVE POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION (PCR) AND QUANTITATIVE TAQMAN PCR

BACKGROUND

The human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in transplant patients. In this study, we compared the diagnostic value of pp65 antigen test, qualitative nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and quantitative Taqman PCR in predicting the clinical outcome of CMV infection.

METHODS

A total of 169 samples derived from 59 organ-transplant recipients (kidney n= 46, liver n= 11, kidney and pancreas n= 2) were analyzed. Peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL) were isolated using dextran gradient centrifugation, and 2 x 10 cells were analyzed for pp65 antigen by immunofluorescence. A crude DNA extract obtained from the same number of cells was used for qualitative nested PCR and quantitative Taqman PCR analysis. RESULTS.: The correlation coefficient of pp65 antigen test and Taqman PCR was R= 0.699 (P = 0.001). With cut-off values for pp65 antigen test set at greater than 10 positive nuclei per 2 x 10 PBL, sensitivity was 91%, and positive predictive value (PPV) was 70%. When the corresponding cut-off value for Taqman PCR was applied (>125000 genome copies per 2 x 10 PBL), a sensitivity of 83% and a PPV of 68% were found. Both assays allowed for the monitoring of successful antiviral therapy. Although qualitative nested PCR was highly sensitive (95%), it was less useful in predicting CMV disease (PPV 47%) and in therapy control.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that pp65 antigen test and Taqman PCR are almost equivalent in the monitoring of CMV infection and disease when identical cell numbers are used for both assays.

Comparison of intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin pre-emptive treatment in cytomegalovirus-positive heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

We compared the use of intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin (CMVIG) as a pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive heart transplant recipients.

METHODS

Of 59 CMV-seropositive adult heart transplant recipients enrolled in Group 1, 37 tested positive for pp65 antigen within 12 weeks post-transplantation. These patients were randomized to receive either intravenous ganciclovir (n = 23) or CMVIG (n = 14). Group 2 included 133 CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients who were not tested for CMV antigenemia and who received no anti-CMV therapy.

RESULTS

CMV disease developed in 0 of 59 patients from Group 1, and in 27 of 133 patients (20%) in Group 2 (p = 0.0001). The incidence of superinfections was lower in Group 1 (0.28 +/- 0.46) than in Group 2 (1.10 +/- 1.33) (p = 0.01). The 2 groups did not differ with regard to incidence of rejection (0.7 +/- 0.9 in Group 1 vs 1.0 +/- 1.2 in Group 2; p = NS), transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (14% in Group 1 vs 16% in Group 2; p = NS) or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (0% in Group 1 vs 2% in Group 2; p = NS). Ganciclovir and CMVIG therapies were associated with similar rates of rejection (0.52 +/- 0.6 with ganciclovir vs 0.50 +/- 0.60 with CMVIG; p = NS), superinfection (0.30 +/- 0.48 with ganciclovir vs 0.25 +/- 0.46 with CMVIG; p = NS), and transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (13% with ganciclovir vs 14% with CMVIG, p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The pre-emptive anti-CMV approach is superior to prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients. Both ganciclovir and CMVIG are equally effective.

Gastrointestinal Infections Caused by Cytomegalovirus

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important human pathogen, causing a variety of syndromes ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening end-organ disease. Infections of the gastrointestinal tract are an especially common form of disease caused by CMV and are usually manifest as luminal infections, such as esophagitis or colitis. Solid organ disease caused by CMV is also known to occur, with hepatitis being the most common syndrome. The large majority of cases of tissue-invasive disease caused by CMV have been reported to occur in immunocompromised hosts. Patients at highest risk for serious CMV-mediated disease are commonly HIV infected, recipients of transplants, or are receiving potent immunosuppressive medications. Intriguingly, several recent reports have discussed the previously underappreciated role of serious forms of CMV-mediated disease occurring in immunocompetent patients. This paper reviews several recent reports addressing important aspects related to the diagnosis, treatment, and management of CMV infections of the gastrointestinal tract.