Antiviral Therapies for Cytomegalovirus in Solid-Organ Transplantation

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.

Valganciclovir dosing using area under the curve calculations in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

Pediatric valganciclovir dosing recommendations have not been extensively validated for prevention or treatment for CMV infection. As such, we performed a pharmacokinetic study to compare different valganciclovir dosing regimens and the potential benefits of individualized dose adjustments in children following organ transplantation. Ganciclovir AUCs were calculated from four plasma drug levels in pediatric SOT recipients aged six months through three yr receiving valganciclovir suspension by mouth. Of the 28 ganciclovir AUC calculations performed, 11 (39%) were outside the therapeutic target range of 40-60 mcg h/L leading to a valganciclovir dose adjustment. Current manufacturer-recommended dosing based on BSA and CrCl was estimated to result in therapeutic AUCs in fewer patients than the simple weight-based formula used in our institution (4 vs. 13; p = 0.017). An AUC calculation using only the two- and five-h measurements was strongly correlated with the AUC using all four time measurements (R(2) = 0.846; p < 0.001). A simple weight-based dosing approach gives a higher probability for therapeutic AUCs compared to the manufacturer-recommended dosing in pediatric transplant patients aged six months through three yr with normal renal function. An AUC calculated using two sample times might allow for fewer blood draws in the future.

Update and review: state-of-the-art management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease following thoracic organ transplantation

PURPOSE

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is among the most important viral pathogens affecting solid organ recipients. The direct effects of CMV (eg, infection and its sequela; tissue invasive disease) are responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. In addition, CMV is associated with numerous indirect effects, including immunomodulatory effects, acute and chronic rejection, and opportunistic infections. Due to the potentially devastating effects of CMV, transplant surgeons and physicians have been challenged to fully understand this infectious complication and find the best ways to prevent and treat it to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

SUMMARY

Lung, heart, and heart-lung recipients are at considerably high risk of CMV infection. Both direct and indirect effects of CMV in these populations have potentially lethal consequences. The use of available treatment options depend on the level of risk of each patient population for CMV infection and disease. Those at the highest risk are CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organs (D+/R-), followed by D+/R+, and D-/R+. More than 1 guideline exists delineating prevention and treatment options for CMV, and new guidelines are being developed. It is hoped that new treatment algorithms will provide further guidance to the transplantation community. The first part describes the overall effects of CMV, both direct and indirect; risk factors for CMV infection and disease; methods of diagnosis; and currently available therapies for prevention and treatment. Part 2 similarly addresses antiviral-resistant CMV, summarizing incidence, risk factors, methods of diagnosis, and treatment options. Parts 3 and 4 present cases to illustrate issues surrounding CMV in heart and lung transplantation, respectively. Part 3 discusses the possible mechanisms by which CMV can cause damage to the coronary allograft and potential techniques of avoiding such damage, with emphasis on fostering strong CMV-specific immunity. Part 4 highlights the increased incidence of CMV infection and disease among lung transplant recipients and its detrimental effect on survival. The possible benefits of extended-duration anti-CMV prophylaxis are explored, as are those of combination prophylaxis with valganciclovir and CMVIG.

CONCLUSION

Through improved utilization of information regarding optimized antiviral therapy for heart and lung transplant recipients to prevent and treat CMV infection and disease and through increased understanding of clinical strategies to assess, treat, and monitor patients at high risk for CMV recurrence and resistance, the health care team will be able to provide the coordinated effort needed to improve patient outcomes.

The value of immunoprophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection with intravenous immunoglobulin in pediatric liver transplant recipients receiving a low-dose immunosupressive regimen

The incidence of CMV infection following pediatric Ltx is particularly high, which can be attributed to the increased number of patients at high risk for primary infection (donor CMV+, recipient CMV-). Current approaches to cope with this complication producing post-operative morbidity include prophylactic or preemptive ganciclovir therapy. As the risk for symptomatic CMV infection is directly correlated with the intensity of immunosuppression, the aim of our study was to assess the value of IVIG in order to protect children receiving low-dose immunosuppression from CMV disease. Twenty-eight consecutive children (median age 62.2 months) at high risk prospectively received three infusions of IVIG on days four, 14, and 28 post-transplant and were monitored for six months post-Ltx. Immunosuppression consisted of cyclosporine (initial trough levels 170-200 microg/L) and prednisolone (starting dose 15 mg/m(2)) as well as basiliximab induction therapy. Patient survival was 100% and graft survival was 92.9%. Two subjects developed laboratory findings of CMV infection (8%) and one child suffered from tissue invasive CMV disease (4%). Three patients were excluded from the study because of protocol violations. We conclude that there was a low incidence of CMV disease among a prospective cohort receiving low-dose immunosuppression and a standard IVIG product.