Valacyclovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis Reduces the Risk of Acute Renal Allograft Rejection

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.

Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Guidelines by the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society for Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic viral pathogen in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The Korean guideline for the prevention of CMV infection in SOT recipients was developed jointly by the Korean Society for Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society of Transplantation. CMV serostatus of both donors and recipients should be screened before transplantation to best assess the risk of CMV infection after SOT. Seronegative recipients receiving organs from seropositive donors face the highest risk, followed by seropositive recipients. Either antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy can be used to prevent CMV infection. While both strategies have been demonstrated to prevent CMV infection post-transplant, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. CMV serostatus, transplant organ, other risk factors, and practical issues should be considered for the selection of preventive measures. There is no universal viral load threshold to guide treatment in preemptive therapy. Each institution should define and validate its own threshold. Valganciclovir is the favored agent for both prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. The evaluation of CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity and the monitoring of viral load kinetics are gaining interest, but there was insufficient evidence to issue recommendations. Specific considerations on pediatric transplant recipients are included.

Low dose thymoglobulin versus basiliximab in cytomegalovirus positive kidney transplant recipients: Effectiveness of preemptive cytomegalovirus modified strategy

BACKGROUND

We performed a retrospective trial to determine asymptomatic CMV reactivation and CMV disease in kidney allograft recipients with positive CMV serostatus.

METHODS

Preemptive modified strategy under low dose thymoglobulin versus basiliximab induction was evaluated. Patients were monitored by CMV-polymerase chain reaction (PCR); if the viral load was >4000copies/μl, they received valganciclovir adjusted for their renal function.

RESULTS

132 recipients were included in the study, 84 and 48 receiving basiliximab and thymoglobulin induction respectively, and followed up for 12 months. Asymptomatic CMV reactivation was significantly higher for thymoglobulin (77.1% vs. 16.7%, p<0.001). Treatment groups had similar rates of CMV disease (3.6% vs. 2.1%, p 0.538). The significant difference in asymptomatic CMV reactivation between two treatment groups did not have any impact on 1 year graft function (71±26ml/min vs. 74±19ml/min; p=0.475) and no histological differences in protocol biopsies were observed among patients with asymptomatic CMV reactivation vs those without CMV reactivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the high asymptomatic CMV reactivation incidence in patients who received thymoglobulin induction, our results suggest that valganciclovir prophylaxis may be advantageous in CMV seropositive renal transplant recipients after low dose thymoglobulin induction. A preemptive strategy appeared to significantly reduce the likelihood of CMV disease in both groups. Rejection risk and negative impact in renal function associated with asymptomatic CMV reactivation was not found in our series.

Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of −20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −36.09% to −4.98%), −19.3% (95% CI = −32.7% to −5.93%), and −10.4% (95% CI = −19.7% to −0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.

Association between cytomegalovirus infection and allograft rejection in a large contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a common complication after heart transplantation (HTx). The association between CMV infection and allograft rejection is debated in the era of efficient prophylactic antiviral therapies.

METHODS

This single-center cohort study utilized a highly phenotyped database of HTx recipients (2012-2016). The primary endpoint was the analysis of the association between CMV infection (CMV load ≥ 500 IU/mL whole blood) and the risk of allograft rejection (cellular rejection ≥ 1R1B, antibody-mediated rejection ≥ pAMR1). Secondary endpoints included the analysis of a higher CMV load threshold (≥10 000 IU/mL) and different risk periods after PCR positivity. A mixed-effect logistic regression model with a random intercept was applied. Results were adjusted for important risk factors of rejection.

RESULTS

Overall, 384 patients were included and 6388 CMV loads and 3,494 endomyocardial biopsies were analyzed. CMV infections ≥ 500 IU/mL were diagnosed on 1223 (19.2%) blood samples from 284 (72.1%) patients and allograft rejections on 246 biopsies (7%) from 149 patients (38.8%). We did not find any association between CMV infection ≥ 500 IU/mL and rejection (univariable: OR 0.94, 95% CI [0.61, 1.45], P = .78, multivariable: OR 0.86, 95% CI [0.55, 1.33], P = .85). These results were consistent when analyzing a higher CMV load threshold and different periods of risk, reinforced by internal validation procedures and a posteriori calculation of the power (primary endpoint: power = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79-0.84]) and reproducible across different clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

CMV infection was not associated with an increased risk of rejection in a contemporary cohort of HTx recipients.

Antiviral treatment approaches for cytomegalovirus prevention in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Various CMV anti-viral (AV) preventive strategies have been utilized in KTRs. We examined efficacy, safety and costs of CMV-AV prevention strategies in KTRs using a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications indexed in MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to November 2018). Thirty RCTs met inclusion criteria with 22 unique AV preventive strategies. Prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower rates of CMV infection/disease (CMVi/d) compared to no prophylaxis (pooled odds ratio, pOR with 95% confidence interval (CI): CMVi: 0.33; 0.19, 0.57; CMVd: 0.27; 0.19; 0.39). Preemptive therapy (PET) had lower rates of CMVd (0.29; 0.11, 0.77), and medical costs compared to no PET. Prophylaxis had significantly lower rates of early CMVi/d, and higher rates of late CMVi and hematological adverse events (leukopenia, 2.93; 1.22, 7.04), and similar overall medical costs compared to PET. Studies involving head-to-head comparison of different prophylaxis approaches showed mixed findings with respect to optimum dose, duration and route of administration on CMV outcomes. Although there was heterogeneity across populations and interventions, both prophylaxis and PET strategies reduced CMVi/d compared to no prophylaxis/PET and had differential safety profile in terms of hematological adverse events. For comprehensiveness we did not limit study inclusion based on date; the wide time-period may have contributed to the heterogeneity in prevention approaches which subsequently made pooling studies a challenge. Despite demonstrated efficacy of prophylaxis/PET, our findings highlight the potential need of a novel intervention with a better safety profile and perhaps improved outcomes.

Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection after solid organ transplantation: a Bayesian network analysis

Background

Cytomegalovirus infection is one of the most common complications after solid organ transplantation. There have been several classes of antiviral drugs for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection, such as acyclovir, valacyclovir, ganciclovir and valganciclovir.

Methods

We searched relevant prospective and multi-armed studies on PubMed from Jan. 1984 up to Mar. 2018.

Results

Seventeen prospective studies involving 2062 patients were included in the analysis. In the case of cytomegalovirus infection, the ganciclovir group (OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.09–0.57) and the valacyclovir group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.04–0.69) provided significantly better outcomes than the control group. The ganciclovir (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.13–0.86) and valacyclovir groups (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.07–0.98) showed moderate superiority compared to the acyclovir group. As for cytomegalovirus disease, the ganciclovir, valacyclovir and valganciclovir groups showed significant advantages compared with the control group (ganciclovir group: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.07–0.31, valacyclovir group: OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01–0.33, valganciclovir group: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.02–0.45). Similarly, the ganciclovir group (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12–0.71) and the valacyclovir group (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.03–0.72) showed better results than the acyclovir group.

Conclusion

Valacyclovir showed to be the most efficient antiviral for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease. Additional studies are required to evaluate putative side effects associated with valacyclovir administration.

Usefulness of valacyclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection after anti-thymocyte globulin as rejection therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) treatment for acute T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR) can increase the risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of valacyclovir prophylaxis against CMV infection after ATG administration as anti-rejection therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 55 kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) receiving ATG for steroid resistant TCMR. In all KTRs, we used intravenous ganciclovir during ATG injection. In 34 KTRs treated before July 2013, we performed preemptive therapy for CMV infection after ATG therapy. They were regarded as the historic control group (CONT). After July 2013, we used valacyclovir maintenance for 1 month after ATG therapy in 21 patients (VAL). The primary outcome was the incidence of CMV infection, and the secondary outcomes were subsequent acute rejection, and graft and patient outcome.

RESULTS

Valacyclovir prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of CMV infection (VAL, 9.6% vs. CONT, 67.6%; p < 0.001), and CMV-free survival rate was higher in the VAL group compared to the CONT group (p = 0.009). In the VAL group, two cases of CMV infection were limited to CMV viremia, but CMV disease or syndrome (n = 3) was detected in the CONT group. There was no difference in graft failure (CONT, 70.5% vs. VAL, 47.6%; p = 0.152), incidence of subsequent rejection after ATG treatment (CONT, 41.1% vs. VAL, 33.3%; p = 0.776), and graft or patient survival between the two groups. There were no major adverse events associated with valacyclovir prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, valacyclovir prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of CMV infection after ATG treatment for steroid resistant TCMR.

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.

Less renal allograft fibrosis with valganciclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus compared to high-dose valacyclovir: a parallel group, open-label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis may prevent CMV indirect effects in renal transplant recipients. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of valganciclovir and valacyclovir prophylaxis for CMV after renal transplantation with the focus on chronic histologic damage within the graft.

METHODS

From November 2007 through April 2012, adult renal transplant recipients were randomized, in an open-label, single-center study, at a 1:1 ratio to 3-month prophylaxis with valganciclovir (n = 60) or valacyclovir (n = 59). The primary endpoint was moderate-to-severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy assessed by protocol biopsy at 3 years evaluated by a single pathologist blinded to the study group. The analysis was conducted in an intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Among the 101 patients who had a protocol biopsy specimen available, the risk of moderate-to-severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy was significantly lower in those treated with valganciclovir (22% versus 34%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.90; P = 0.032 by multivariate logistic regression). The incidence of CMV disease (9% versus 2%; P = 0.115) and CMV DNAemia (36% versus 42%; P = 0.361) were not different at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Valganciclovir prophylaxis, as compared with valacyclovir, was associated with a reduced risk of moderate-to-severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy in patients after renal transplantation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12610000016033 ). Registered on September 26, 2007.

Treatment of alpha and beta herpesvirus infections in solid organ transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Human herpesviruses frequently cause infections in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Areas covered: We provide an overview of the clinical impact of alpha and beta herpesviruses and highlight the mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, clinical indications, and adverse effects of antiviral drugs for the management of herpes simplex virus, varicella zoster virus and cytomegalovirus. We comprehensively evaluated key clinical trials that led to drug approval, and served as the foundation for management guidelines. We further provide an update on investigational antiviral agents for alpha and beta herpesvirus infections after SOT. Expert commentary: The therapeutic armamentarium for herpes infections is limited by the emergence of drug resistance. There have been major efforts for discovery of new drugs against these viruses, but the results of early-phase clinical trials have been less than encouraging. We believe, however, that more antiviral drug options are needed given the adverse side effects associated with current antiviral agents, and the emergence of drug-resistant virus populations in SOT recipients. Likewise, optimized use and strategies are needed for existing and novel antiviral drugs against alpha and beta-herpesviruses in SOT recipients.

Randomized trial of valganciclovir versus valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus in renal transplantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Both valganciclovir and high-dose valacyclovir are recommended for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis after renal transplantation. A head-to-head comparison of both regimens is lacking. The objective of the study was to compare valacyclovir prophylaxis with valganciclovir, which constituted the control group.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In a randomized, open-label, single-center trial, recipients of renal transplants (recipient or donor cytomegalovirus-seropositive) were randomly allocated (1:1) to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (2 g four times daily) or valganciclovir (900 mg daily). Enrollment occurred from November of 2007 to April of 2012. The primary end points were cytomegalovirus DNAemia and biopsy-proven acute rejection at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients were assigned to valacyclovir (n=59) or valganciclovir prophylaxis (n=60). Cytomegalovirus DNAemia developed in 24 (43%) of 59 patients in the valacyclovir group and 18 (31%) of 60 patients in the valganciclovir group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 2.54; P=0.36). The incidence of cytomegalovirus disease was 2% with valacyclovir and 5% with valganciclovir prophylaxis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.01 to 5.90; P=0.36). Significantly more patients with valacyclovir prophylaxis developed biopsy-proven acute rejection (18 of 59 [31%] versus 10 of 60 [17%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 5.65; P=0.03). The incidence of polyomavirus viremia was higher in the valganciclovir group (18% versus 36%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.96; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Valganciclovir shows no superior efficacy in cytomegalovirus DNAemia prevention compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis. However, the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection is higher with valacyclovir.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir in cytomegalovirus prevention in solid organ transplantation

Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection using antiviral prophylaxis or the pre-emptive therapy approach is an integral part of management of patients after solid organ transplantation. Regarding renal transplantation, valacyclovir is currently the only antiviral agent recommended for prophylaxis as an alternative to valganciclovir. This review article discusses studies documenting the efficacy and safety of valacyclovir prophylaxis as well as those comparing valacyclovir with other prophylactic regimens or with pre-emptive therapy. Also addressed are the economic aspects supporting the cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir prophylaxis and demonstrating lower costs compared with other cytomegalovirus preventive strategies.

CMV Viremia is associated with a decreased incidence of BKV reactivation after kidney and kidney-pancreas transplantation

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and BK virus (BKV) infections can cause significant morbidity after kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant. There are limited data on the epidemiology and interactions between these two viral pathogens.

METHODS

We prospectively screened 609 kidney or kidney-pancreas transplant recipients from January 2007 to June 2011 for BKV and/or CMV viremia. This included 7453 quantitative BKV polymerase chain reaction and 15,496 quantitative CMV polymerase chain reaction tests. We evaluated risk factors and timing of these infections and the impact of treatment of one infection on the other.

RESULTS

Among 609 recipients, 108 (17.7%) developed CMV viremia, of which 95 (88%) were asymptomatic, 5 (5%) had CMV syndrome, and 8 (7%) developed CMV tissue invasive disease at a median of 5.6 months after transplantation. Risk factors for CMV infection using multivariable analysis were D+R- serogroup (P≤0.0001), donor age >50 years (P=0.013), and higher mean tacrolimus (P=0.0009) and mycophenolate mofetil (P=0.01) blood levels. The incidence of BKV infection in the total population was 163 of 609 (26.7%), of which 150 (92%) occurred in patents without antecedent CMV viremia. Such patients demonstrated a higher rate of subsequent BKV viremia than patients with antecedent CMV viremia (P=0.003; hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.4). Moreover, we found that only symptomatic CMV viremia had a significant negative impact on graft survival when compared with asymptomatic CMV viremia and those without CMV viremia (relative risk, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-8.9; P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

CMV viremia may indirectly protect against subsequent BK viremia possibly due to a reduction of intensity of immunosuppression after diagnosis of CMV viremia.

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.

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.

Advances in cytomegalovirus-preventive strategies in solid organ transplantation: defending pre-emptive therapy

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important part of clinical care provided to patients after solid organ transplantation. While the optimal preventive strategy has not been defined, most centers rely on universal prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy. This article comments on recent studies designed to identify strategies that effectively reduce the incidence of late-onset CMV disease as the main problem associated with prophylaxis, and on recent data regarding the development of CMV-specific immunity depending on the CMV-preventive regimen used. Despite an apparent trend to prefer prophylaxis in clinical practice, this approach does not seem to be based on robust evidence.

Long-term outcomes of pre-emptive valganciclovir compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus in renal transplantation

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) is essential in organ transplantation. The two main strategies are pre-emptive therapy, in which one screens for and treats asymptomatic CMV viremia, and universal antiviral prophylaxis. We compared these strategies and examined long-term outcomes in a randomized, open-label, single-center trial. We randomly assigned 70 renal transplant recipients (CMV-seropositive recipient or donor) to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (n=34) or pre-emptive valganciclovir for significant CMV viremia detected at predefined assessments through month 12 (n=36). Among the 55 patients who had a protocol biopsy specimen available at 3 years to allow assessment of the primary outcome, 9 (38%) of 24 patients in the prophylaxis group and 6 (19%) of 31 patients in the pre-emptive therapy group had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-8.43; P=0.22). The prophylaxis group had significantly higher intrarenal mRNA expression of genes involved in fibrogenesis. The occurrence of CMV disease was similar in both groups, but pre-emptive therapy improved 4-year graft survival (92% versus 74%; P=0.049) as a result of worse outcomes in patients with late-onset CMV viremia. In conclusion, compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis, pre-emptive valganciclovir therapy may lead to less severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and to significantly better graft survival.

Ganciclovir transiently attenuates murine cytomegalovirus-associated renal allograft inflammation

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic ganciclovir (GCV) is used in high-risk renal transplant patients to prevent acute cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, but its impact on inflammation within the allograft itself remains undefined.

METHODS

To study the effect of GCV prophylaxis on allograft inflammation, murine CMV (MCMV)-infected allografts were analyzed in a murine donor positive/recipient negative allogeneic renal transplantation model by flow cytometry and immunofluorescent staining.

RESULTS

By flow cytometry, CD45+ leukocyte infiltrates were more abundant in MCMV-infected allografts at 14 days posttransplant compared with uninfected grafts (P<0.01) and decreased in the presence of GCV (P<0.05). CD11c+ dendritic cells, Gr-1+ myeloid cells, CD204+ macrophages, and CD49b+ natural killer cells were reduced in GCV-treated allografts compared with MCMV-infected grafts without GCV treatment (P<0.05). However, GCV failed to reduce these cell types to levels found in MCMV-uninfected allografts. By day 7 after cessation of GCV prophylaxis, dendritic cells, macrophages, and natural killer cells increased in number and became statistically indistinguishable from numbers of cells found in MCMV-infected allografts without GCV. GCV treatment did not affect the numbers of CD4+, CD8+, or CD19+/B220+ lymphocytes infiltrating the allografts. Infiltrates were confirmed histologically by immunofluorescent staining for CD3+ and CD11b+ cells.

CONCLUSIONS

In this model, MCMV-infected allografts developed significantly greater innate and adaptive leukocytic infiltrates compared with uninfected grafts. GCV attenuated the MCMV-associated innate leukocyte infiltrates in infected allografts but not the lymphocytic infiltrates. The attenuated innate response was limited to the period of GCV prophylaxis.

Cytomegalovirus incidence between everolimus versus mycophenolate in de novo renal transplants: pooled analysis of three clinical trials

Everolimus (EVR) in heart and renal transplant (RTx) recipients may be associated with a decreased incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV). A detailed analysis of the association between EVR versus mycophenolic acid (MPA) and CMV events has not been reported. CMV data from 2004 de novo RTx recipients from three-randomized, prospective, EVR studies A2309 (N = 833), B201 (N = 588) and B251 (N = 583) were retrospectively analyzed to identify differences between two EVR dosing groups and MPA. EVR groups received 1.5 mg/day, or 3 mg/day with either standard (SD-CsA) or reduced dose cyclosporine (RD-CsA). Controls received MPA with SD-CsA. CMV prophylaxis was as per center practice. CMV incidence (infection/syndrome, disease, viremia) was captured per local center evaluations. Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated that freedom from CMV viremia and infection/syndrome was significantly greater for EVR versus MPA for recipients without CMV prophylaxis. Among recipients who received prophylaxis, freedom from viremia was greater for EVR 3.0 mg; freedom from infection/syndrome was greater for EVR 3.0 and 1.5 mg. Although freedom from organ involvement was numerically greater for EVR, it was not statistically significant. This analysis documents significant reductions in the incidence of CMV infection/syndrome and viremia in EVR-treated de novo RTx recipients, especially those who did not receive CMV prophylaxis versus MPA.

Human cytomegalovirus and kidney transplantation: a clinician's update

Infection with human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. CMV disease is diagnosed based on the detection of viral replication by phosphoprotein 65 antigenemia or CMV DNA polymerase chain reaction in combination with typical signs and symptoms. Risk factors include CMV-seronegative recipients receiving a CMV-seropositive transplant, older donor age, exposure to cyclosporine and/or antilymphocyte antibody, rejection episodes, and impaired transplant function. Current preventive strategies in kidney transplant recipients include pre-emptive therapy with valganciclovir or intravenous ganciclovir and universal prophylaxis with valacyclovir, valganciclovir, or ganciclovir for 3-6 months after kidney transplantation and for 1-3 months after treatment with antilymphocyte antibody. Established disease should be treated using either intravenous ganciclovir or oral valganciclovir until CMV replication can no longer be detected. In addition to direct effects, CMV infection also induces a wide range of indirect effects, such as decreased transplant and recipient survival and susceptibility to rejection and opportunistic infections. In this review, we highlight the most relevant topics on CMV and kidney transplantation based on current evidence and guidelines.

Use of kidney function end points in kidney transplant trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in kidney transplantation are beginning to include markers of kidney function as end points now that traditional outcomes, such as acute rejection, become increasingly rare events. The frequency and type of kidney function end points used are unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING & POPULATION

Randomized controlled trials in adult kidney transplant recipients reported in 5 major general medical journals and 5 major subspecialty journals in nephrology and transplantation between January 2003 and November 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion of at least one kidney function end point at least 1 month posttransplant.

RESULTS

133 (79%) of 169 randomized trials identified used a kidney function end point. Of these, 37 (28%) used one or more measures of kidney function as the primary end point, and 81 (61%), as a secondary end point. For the primary end point, 21 (57%) trials used a creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), 18 (49%) used serum creatinine level, and 7 (19%) used measured GFR. Overall, eGFR was an end point in 81 (61%) trials, and measured GFR, in 12 (9%) trials.

LIMITATIONS

This review is limited by the poor quality of the included trials, with many not defining either primary or secondary end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures of kidney function are used commonly as surrogate end points in kidney transplant trials, with eGFR becoming more frequently used over time. Further data are needed to properly validate these surrogate end points and fully understand their limitations when designing and interpreting randomized trials.

The effect of cytomegalovirus antigenemia titer on the efficacy of preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease after kidney transplantation

There is some controversy regarding the exact cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia titer that should be used as a guideline for preemptive anti-CMV therapy. We performed 634 consecutive kidney transplantations between January 2000 and June 2007. Preemptive therapy employed intravenous gancyclovir treatment when the CMV antigenemia titer was >or=50/4x10(5) leukocytes after kidney transplantation. The 634 recipients were allocated into 2 groups according to the peak CMV antegenemia: group A, CMV antigenemia titer<50/4x10(5) (n=550); and group B, >or=50/40x10(5) (n=84). Among the 634 recipients, 264 were positive for CMV antigenemia, and 61 developed symptomatic CMV infections. The incidence of symptomatic CMV infections in group B was significantly higher than in group A. Two cases in both groups developed tissue-proven CMV disease: group A CMV colitis and CMV nephritis, and group B, 2 cases of CMV colitis. Graft and patient survival rates in groups A and B at 5 years posttransplantation were not different. The authors concluded that a CMV antigenemia titer of >or=50/4x10(5) leukocytes can be considered an appropriate guideline for preemptive anti-CMV therapy.

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.

Cytomegalovirus infection after solid-organ transplantation, its risk factors, direct and indirect effects and prevention strategies

A humán populációban szélesen elterjedt cytomegalovírus által okozott infekció egyike a leggyakrabban előforduló szervátültetést követő virális eredetű fertőzéseknek, amely befolyásolja a transzplantált szerv és a beteg túlélését is. Leggyakrabban a súlyos tünetekkel járó fertőzés olyan transzplantáltaknál alakul ki, akik cytomegalovírus-szeronegatívak az átültetés idejében, és a szervet szeropozitív donortól kapják. A fertőzés előfordulását és súlyosságát egyéb rizikótényezők is befolyásolják: az immunszuppresszió intenzitása, a beültetett szerv típusa, a graftkilökődés és/vagy ennek kezelése, a donor és recipiens közötti „HLA-mismatch”, a recipiens egyes HLA-típusai, női nem stb. A már kialakult cytomegalovírus-infekciónak direkt (tünetek) és indirekt (szövetkárosító és immunmoduláló) hatásai vannak, mindkettő befolyásolja a beteg életminőségét és a további állapot alakulását. Ezért speciális kezelési sémákat és a megelőzésre irányuló intézkedéseket dolgoztak ki, amelyek segítségével a cytomegalovírus károsító hatása csökkenthető vagy elkerülhető. Számos preventív lehetőség közül a gyakorlatban két megelőzési stratégia alkalmazható hatékonyan: az univerzális profilaxis (részét képezi a szelektív profilaxis) és a preemptív terápia. A szerzők – saját és külföldi tapasztalatok alapján – összefoglalják a prevenciós lehetőségeket, összehasonlítják az alkalmazott protokollok előnyeit és hátrányait. Az Amerikai és Kanadai Transzplantációs Társaságok ajánlása alapján a legtöbb amerikai, de sok európai transzplantációs központban is a betegeket három csoportba sorolják: magas, közepes és alacsony rizikójú csoportok; a besorolásnak megfelelően választható a profilaxis. A magas rizikójú betegcsoportoknál (R–/D+ betegek és tüdőtranszplantáltak) nélkülözhetetlen az univerzális profilaxis. Azoknál a betegeknél, akik antilymphocyta-ellenanyagot (ATG, ALG vagy OKT3) kapnak, szükséges az ún. szelektív profilaxis alkalmazása. A közepes rizikójú betegcsoportoknál (R+/D+ vagy R+/D–) lehet választani az univerzális profilaxis és a preemptív terápia között a klinika adottságait figyelembe véve. A nagy forgalmú ambulanciákon, a szoros monitorozás nehézségei és a költséges laboratóriumi vizsgálatok miatt, továbbá a CMV-fertőzés indirekt hatásainak kiküszöbölése érdekében az ajánlások az univerzális profilaxis alkalmazását javasolják. Az alacsony rizikójú csoportban (R–/D–) vese-, máj-, hasnyálmirigy-, szívtranszplantáció esetén a megelőzés szükségességét a transzplantációs centrum dönti el.

Effect of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with acyclovir on renal transplant survival

It is recognized that cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in transplant recipients may lead to graft loss. Prophylaxis with acyclovir has therefore gained widespread acceptance, but the debate on whether this intervention improves long term graft survival continues. All patients who received renal grafts at the National Renal Transplant Centre, Dublin, between January 1992 and December 1999 were retrospectively analyzed. During this time period, patients who were CMV positive and/or had received grafts from CMV-positive donors were administered prophylactic oral acyclovir 800 mg thrice daily, adjusted for calculated creatinine clearance, from the first day post-transplantation. This treatment was continued for three months unless the graft failed or the patient developed CMV disease or died. Graft and patient outcomes were compared in recipients who received acyclovir with those who did not. Over the study period, 935 patients received renal transplants in our center, of whom 487 were administered acyclovir. The incidence of CMV disease was 3.3 cases per 100 patients per annum in those who required prophylaxis. Despite prophylaxis, graft outcomes were found to be significantly worse (p value < 0.001) in the group that qualified for acyclovir. We conclude that acyclovir provides incomplete protection from the negative impact of CMV on graft survival.

Valacyclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive valganciclovir therapy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease after renal transplantation

Both preemptive therapy and universal prophylaxis are used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after transplantation. Randomized trials comparing both strategies are sparse. Renal transplant recipients at risk for CMV (D+/R-, D+/R+, D-/R+) were randomized to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (2 g q.i.d., n = 34) or preemptive therapy with valganciclovir (900 mg b.i.d. for a minimum of 14 days, n = 36) for significant CMV DNAemia (>/=2000 copies/mL by quantitative PCR in whole blood) assessed weekly for 16 weeks and at 5, 6, 9 and 12 months. The 12-month incidence of CMV DNAemia was higher in the preemptive group (92% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) while the incidence of CMV disease was not different (6% vs. 9%, p = 0.567). The onset of CMV DNAemia was delayed in the valacyclovir group (37 +/- 22 vs. 187 +/- 110 days, p < 0.001). Significantly higher rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection during 12 months was observed in the preemptive group (36% vs. 15%, p = 0.034). The average CMV-associated costs per patient were $5525 and $2629 in preemptive therapy and valacyclovir, respectively (p < 0.001). However, assuming the cost of $60 per PCR test, there was no difference in overall costs. In conclusion, preemptive valganciclovir therapy and valacyclovir prophylaxis are equally effective in the prevention of CMV disease after renal transplantation.

Etiology and impact of cytomegalovirus disease on solid organ transplant recipients

PURPOSE

The characteristics, etiology, natural history, and direct and indirect effects of CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients are described.

SUMMARY

CMV is a common herpesvirus that may be present in the donor or recipient of a solid organ transplant. Even though it is rarely pathogenic in healthy patients, transplant recipients are at risk for CMV viremia and symptomatic disease due to their immune-suppressed status. In addition to symptoms directly attributed to active disease, CMV can have a variety of indirect effects. Indirect effects may include additional infectious complications, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease, allograft rejection, allograft loss, or death. The three most prevalent risk factors for CMV infection are CMV seronegativity in a recipient of an organ from a CMV-seropositive donor, the type of organ transplanted, and the degree of immune suppression. CMV prophylaxis is effective at preventing disease, but may result in a delayed onset where CMV disease occurs once the prophylaxis is stopped.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of risk factors for CMV infection and disease, the natural history in transplant recipients, and its direct and indirect effects will help clinicians make appropriate decisions regarding the use of preventive strategies.

Association of the Outcome of Renal Transplantation with Antibody Response to Cytomegalovirus Strain--Specific Glycoprotein H Epitopes

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important pathogen affecting the outcome of renal transplantation. The combination of CMV-seronegative transplant recipients with CMV-seropositive transplant donors places recipients at the highest risk of CMV disease. In cases of congenital CMV infection, existing immunity only partially protected mothers from reinfection with a different genotypic strain. The effect of differences in infected CMV strains between CMV-seropositive transplant donors and CMV seropositive transplant recipients on the outcome of transplantation remains unclear.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter study, the presence of antibodies against strain-specific glycoprotein H epitopes in 84 CMV-seropositive transplant donor/CMV-seropositive transplant recipient renal transplantation cases were determined, and their relationships to acute transplant rejection, CMV infection, degree of antigenemia, and CMV disease were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 84 donor/recipient pairs, 45 and 32 had matched and mismatched strain-specific glycoprotein H antibodies, respectively. Acute transplant rejection in the mismatched group was more frequent than it was in the matched group (63% vs. 22%; P=.005). CMV disease was also more frequently observed in the mismatched group (28% vs. 9%; P=.026). The mismatched group had a higher level of antigenemia (P=.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate more adverse events in the cases with a CMV-seropositive transplant donor and a CMV-seropositive transplant recipient in which the glycoprotein H antibodies are mismatched, suggesting that reinfection with a different CMV strain results in more complications.

Cytomegalovirus in transplantation ? challenging the status quo

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients causes both ''direct'' and ''indirect'' effects including allograft rejection, decreased graft and patient survival, and predisposition to opportunistic infections and malignancies. Options for CMV prevention include pre-emptive therapy, whereby anti-CMV agents are administered based on sensitive viral assays, or universal prophylaxis of all at-risk patients. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficacy, costs, and side effects. Standards of care for prophylaxis have not been established.

METHODS

A committee of international experts was convened to review the available data regarding CMV prophylaxis and to compare preventative strategies for CMV after transplantation from seropositive donors or in seropositive recipients.

RESULTS

Pre-emptive therapy requires frequent monitoring with subsequent treatment of disease and associated costs, while universal prophylaxis results in greater exposure to potential toxicities and costs of drugs. The advantages of prophylaxis include suppressing asymptomatic viremia and prevention of both direct and indirect effects of CMV infection. Meta analyses reveal decreased in mortality for patients receiving CMV prophylaxis. Costs associated with prophylaxis are less than for routine monitoring and pre-emptive therapy. The optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis remains undefined. Extended prophylaxis may improve clinical outcomes in the highest-risk patient populations including donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative renal transplants and in CMV-infected lung and heart transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in transplant recipients, affecting both allograft and patient survival. More studies are necessary to define optimal prophylaxis regimens.

Acute rejection and cardiac allograft vascular disease is reduced by suppression of subclinical cytomegalovirus infection

BACKGROUND

Anticytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis prevents the acute disease but its impact on subclinical infection and allograft outcome is unknown. We sought to determine whether CMV prophylaxis administered for three months after heart transplant would improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study of 66 heart transplant recipients compared aggressive CMV prophylaxis (n = 21, CMV hyperimmune globulin [CMVIG] plus four weeks of intravenous ganciclovir followed by two months of valganciclovir); with standard prophylaxis (n = 45, intravenous ganciclovir for four weeks). Prophylaxis was based on pretransplant donor (D) and recipient (R) CMV serology: R-/D+ received aggressive prophylaxis; R+ received standard prophylaxis. Outcome measures were: CMV infection assessed by DNA-polymerase chain reaction on peripheral blood polymorphonuclear leukocytes, acute rejection, and cardiac allograft vascular disease (CAV) assessed by intravascular ultrasound. All patients completed one year of follow-up. RESULTS.: CMV infection was subclinical in all but four patients (two in each group). Aggressively treated patients had a lower incidence of CMV infection (73 +/- 10% vs. 94 +/- 4%; P = 0.038), and an independent reduced relative risk for acute rejection graded > or =3A (relative risk [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.26-0.96]; P = 0.03), as compared with the standard prophylaxis group. Aggressively prophylaxed patients also showed a slower progression of CAV, in terms of coronary artery lumen loss (lumen volume change=-21 +/- 13% vs. -10+/-14%; P = 0.05); and vessel shrinkage (vessel volume change = -15 +/- 11% vs. -3 +/- 18%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged (val)ganciclovir plus CMVIG reduces viral levels, acute rejection, and allograft vascular disease, suggesting a role for chronic subclinical infection in the pathophysiology of the most common diseases affecting heart transplant recipients.

Anti-cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in solid-organ transplant recipients

Ganciclovir and its prodrug, valganciclovir, are more effective than acyclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in solid-organ transplant recipients. However, the indirect effects of prophylactic use of ganciclovir and acyclovir are comparable, and the greater effectiveness of ganciclovir may be compensated for by less drug-related toxicity with acyclovir or valacyclovir. No conclusive data exist concerning the best technique and duration of surveillance for CMV infection in patients for whom active surveillance for late-onset CMV should be performed, i.e., those reaching the end of prophylaxis. Only large randomised controlled trials, with long follow-up periods, will provide definitive conclusions regarding the comparative prophylactic roles of the major antiviral agents in this population, and how their use fits with a strategy of active surveillance and pre-emptive therapy.

The impact of cytomegalovirus disease and asymptomatic infection on acute renal allograft rejection

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a risk factor for allograft rejection in renal transplant (RTx) recipients. However, the role of asymptomatic CMV infection remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of CMV disease and asymptomatic infection on biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) during 12 months post-RTx.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 106 consecutive RTx recipients at risk for CMV (donor and/or recipient CMV seropositive) were followed prospectively for 12 months post-RTx. CMV activity was monitored using nested PCR from whole blood. Three-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir or ganciclovir was given to 94 patients. BPAR episodes were classified according to the Banff 97 criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effect of CMV disease, asymptomatic infection, and other covariates on BPAR.

RESULTS

Asymptomatic CMV infection occurred in 23% of the patients and 10% developed CMV disease. The incidence of BPAR was 29%. CMV disease was an independent risk factor for BPAR (HR=3.0, P=0.014), while asymptomatic CMV infection was not (P=0.987). In addition to CMV disease, expanded criteria donor and donor age were independent predictors for BPAR. In univariate analysis, valacyclovir (HR=0.26, P=0.008) decreased the risk of BPAR. A similar trend was observed with ganciclovir (HR=0.42, P=0.058). Only valacyclovir remained significant in multivariate analysis (HR=0.18, P=0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

CMV disease, but not asymptomatic infection, is an independent risk factor for BPAR during the first 12 months post-RTx.

24-Week Oral Ganciclovir Prophylaxis in Kidney Recipients Is Associated with Reduced Symptomatic Cytomegalovirus Disease Compared to a 12-Week Course

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is associated with reduced graft and patient survival among kidney recipients. The highest risk of CMV infection occurs in CMV-naive recipients of kidneys from seropositive donors (D+/R-). Optimal CMV prophylaxis is not established. This prospective cohort study compared the safety and efficacy of prophylaxis with 12 versus 24 weeks of oral ganciclovir.

METHODS

We prospectively administered 24 weeks ganciclovir to 31 D+/R- recipients. The control group comprised 39 patients transplanted in the immediately preceding era who received a 12-week course of prophylaxis. All patients received cytolytic therapy within the first month, as well as a tacrolimus-based maintenance regimen. A logistic regression model was fit to examine the relationship between 24 weeks ganciclovir prophylaxis and the odds of developing CMV infection by one year.

RESULTS

Groups were matched, though the 12-week cohort had more delayed graft function than their 24-week counterparts (45% vs. 29%, P=0.04). CMV infection occurred in 31% and 7% patients in the 12-week and 24-week groups, respectively (P<or=0.01). Mean time to development of CMV infection was 17.5+/-2.2 weeks in the 12-week, and 22.0+/-10.0 weeks in the 24-week, groups (P=0.79). Both 24 weeks ganciclovir prophylaxis (O.R. 0.15, 95% C.I. 0.03-0.91, P=0.04) and delayed graft function (O.R. 4.49, 95% C.I. 1.67-36.56, P<0.01) were associated with CMV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral ganciclovir prophylaxis for 24 weeks is associated with a lower risk of symptomatic CMV disease than a 12-week course in high risk D+/R- kidney recipients.