Prevention of primary cytomegalovirus disease in organ transplant recipients with oral ganciclovir or oral acyclovir prophylaxis

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of valganciclovir prophylaxis duration on cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk donor seropositive/recipient seronegative heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Few data support use of 6 over 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in donor seropositive/recipient seronegative (D+R-) heart transplant recipients (HTR).

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed CMV disease and outcomes in 310 adult HTR between July 5, 2005, and December 30, 2016, at our center. Valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis was given for 3-6 months in the D+R- group. Multivariable models evaluated risk factors for CMV disease in patients who received 3 vs 6 months (±1 month) of prophylaxis, with investigation of inverse probability weighting to correct for confounding variables.

RESULTS

The incidence of CMV disease among all patients and the D+R- group was 8.7% (27/310) and 26.5% (22/83), respectively, and included syndrome in 22.2% (6/27) and end-organ involvement in 77.8% (21/27). In a multivariable model, 6 vs 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis was not associated with reduced risk for CMV disease (OR 2.28 [95% CI 0.66, 7.91], P = .19). CMV disease in D+R- HTR was associated with higher rates of hospitalization (87.5% [14/16] vs 6.3% [1/16], P < .001) and for a longer duration than in matched D+R- controls without disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytomegalovirus disease remains a major cause of morbidity in D+R- HTR. In contrast to documented benefit in D+R- lung and kidney recipients, VGCV duration of 6 months was not associated with a lower incidence of CMV disease in D+R- HTR compared to 3-month duration and should be reconsidered in this patient population.

Characterization of the dynamics of human cytomegalovirus resistance to antiviral drugs by ultra-deep sequencing

Prophylactic or preemptive treatment strategies are required to prevent human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in transplant recipients. However, treatment failure occurs when CMV resistant-associated variants (RAVs) are selected. Although the diversity of CMV is lower than that of RNA viruses, CMV appears to show some genetic instability, with possible minor emerging resistance that may be undetectable by Sanger sequencing. We aimed to examine CMV-resistance mutations over time by ultra-deep sequencing (UDS) and Sanger sequencing in a kidney transplant recipient experiencing CMV infection. This patient showed a transient response to three different antiviral drugs (valganciclovir, foscarnet, and maribavir) and four episodes of CMV resistance over two years. The full-length UL97 (2.3kpb) and partial UL54 (2.4kpb) CMV genes were studied by UDS and Sanger sequencing and linkage mutations calculated to determine RAVs. We detected four major and five minor resistance mutations. Minor resistant variants (2-20%) were detected by UDS, whereas major resistance substitutions (>20%) were identified by both UDS and Sanger method. We detected cross-resistance to three drugs, despite high CMV loads, suggesting that the fitness of the viral mutants was not impaired. In conclusion, CMV showed complex dynamic of resistance under antiviral drug pressure, as described for highly variable viruses. The emergence of successive RAVs constitutes a clinically challenging complication and contributes to the difficulty of therapeutic management of patients.

National trends in incidence, prevalence and disability-adjusted life years of invasive aspergillosis in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: We aimed to study the epidemiology, prevalence, incidence, clinical manifestations, underlying diseases, treatments, outcomes, and societal impact through disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of IA in Iran. Methods: A random-effect meta-analytic model was fitted to estimate the prevalence and incidence of IA in Iran. We also calculated DALYs. Results: Out of 79 published studies during the past 25 years from Iran, 23 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2947 patients were included, of whom 396 (13.4%) patients were diagnosed with IA according to EORTC/MSG and ICU criteria. The main underlying condition for IA was hematologic disorders (39.4%). A. flavus 86 (43%) was the most common isolate. The pooled prevalence and incidence rates were 20.5 (95% CI 12.5 to 29.9) and 4.8 (95% CI 2.3-8.2) per 100,000 population, respectively. Total DALYs was estimated 164.13 per 100,000 population. YLLs constitute the majority of IA burden compared to YLDs (162.80 YLLs/100,000 population vs 1.33 YLDs per 100,000 population). The highest YLL rates were found in people aged 45-49 (62.9 YLLs/100,000 population) and 30-34 years (45.2 YLLs/100,000 population), respectively. Conclusion: This study indicates an increasing burden of IA in Iran, despite the extensive use of prophylaxis, challenging the public health, especially immunocompromised patients.

Evaluation of a Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis Protocol in Cytomegalovirus-IgG Positive Renal Transplant Recipients (R+)

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of a unique cytomegalovirus- (CMV) prophylaxis protocol in terms of CMV infection and disease progression in CMV IgG positive kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

Achievement of negative CMV load, using concurrent prophylactic intravenous ganciclovir therapy during induction immunosuppression, combined with a 6-month prophylactic course of acyclovir, would yield a reduced incidence of early CMV infection and disease. CMV DNA was tested for at discharge, at the third, and sixth post-op months, and at the occurrence of any event that could be associated with CMV infection. CMV DNA positive patients received ganciclovir treatment until the viral load became negative. CMV replication was monitored using a quantitative PCR method capable of detecting as few as 42.5 copies/mL. All patients were given a maintenance dose of acyclovir.

RESULT

The file data of 267 patients who had undergone kidney transplantation between 2007 to 2016 were examined. Thirty-four patients were excluded from the study for various reasons, unrelated to the protocol. Of the remaining 233 patients, 42 (18%) had CMV DNA infection. Three patients had CMV disease (1.3%), 1of whom died of pneumonia. Diabetes mellitus (DM) was a risk factor for CMV DNA positivity (P < .004).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of CMV infection and disease is low in renal transplant recipients whose CMV viral load is eliminated after concurrent ganciclovir administration with induction immunosuppression.

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.

Development of a Predictive Model Using Endoscopic Features for Gastric Cytomegalovirus Infection in Renal Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common viral pathogen in transplant patients which often targets the stomach. However, the endoscopic characteristics of gastric CMV infection are not well established. We aimed to develop a predictive model using endoscopic findings for gastric CMV infection in renal transplant patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 287 kidney transplant recipients who underwent endoscopy with biopsy for suspected CMV infection from January 2006 to November 2015 at a tertiary referral hospital was performed. CMV infection was defined based on inclusion bodies in hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemical staining. Endoscopic and clinical parameters related to gastric CMV infection were selected by univariate analyses. Multivariate logistic regression was used to create a predictive model from β-coefficients.

RESULTS

CMV was present in 107 (37.7%) of the 287 patients. Multivariate analysis found age (odds ratio [OR], 0.964; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.938-0.99; P = 0.008), erosions with surface exudate (OR, 5.34; 95% CI, 2.687-10.612; P < 0.001), raised shape of erosions (OR, 3.957; 95% CI, 1.937-8.083; P < 0.001), and antral location of ulcers (OR, 15.018; 95% CI, 5.728-39.371; P < 0.001) as independent predictive factors for gastric CMV infection. Using the predictive model created from this analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 71.03%, 85.56%, 74.51%, 83.24%, and 80.14%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of this model for detecting CMV infection was 0.850 (95% CI, 0.803-0.889; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive model with typical endoscopic findings may be useful for detecting gastric CMV infection in renal transplant patients.

Cytomegalovirus Scrotal Ulcer in a Renal Transplant Patient

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a highly prevalent herpesvirus that can present with cutaneous disease in immunocompromised individuals. This may reflect systemic involvement, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of cutaneous CMV in an immunocompromised patient and to discuss the differential diagnosis of genital ulcers.

METHODS

A medical chart review was conducted on a patient who presented with a scrotal ulcer after renal transplantation. A review of the literature on cutaneous CMV disease was also completed.

RESULTS

Biopsy of the scrotal ulcer revealed classic findings of CMV disease. The patient also developed CMV viremia. Treatment with valganciclovir resolved his scrotal ulcer and viremia.

CONCLUSION

The differential diagnosis for genital ulcers is broad, especially in the immunocompromised patient. Cutaneous CMV disease should be ruled out with biopsy and immunohistochemical examination in immunocompromised patients, as it may reflect systemic involvement and significantly affect patient care.

Low-Dose Valacyclovir for Cytomegalovirus Infection Prophylaxis After a Heart Transplant

OBJECTIVES

Cytomegalovirus infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in solid-organ transplant. Low doses of valacyclovir have been administered as cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in our institution for years. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study of a low-dose regimen for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in heart transplant patients. Therefore, our aim was to determine the results of low doses of valacyclovir in heart transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2006 and December 2014, sixty-eight patients underwent orthotopic heart transplants. All of the patients received triple immunosuppressive therapy after surgery. During the next 6 months, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim was administered for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, and toxoplasmosis. Additionally all patients received valacyclovir hydrochloride (1000 mg/d, oral) for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis and nystatin oral rinse for prophylaxis of fungal infections.

RESULTS

There was only 1 cytomegalovirus infection at follow-up. The patient had cytomegalovirus pneumonia at 17-month follow-up. In response to treatment with 1-week intravenous ganciclovir, the patient was discharged with a further 6-month oral valacyclovir therapy (1000 mg/d).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we hypothesized that daily use of low-dose valacyclovir (1000 mg/d) is not only sufficient for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis but also beneficial in terms of cost.

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.

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.

Surgical complications accompanying liver transplantation in Estonia

The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgical complications accompanying the introduction of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in Estonia. Between 1999 and 2009, we performed the first 12 liver transplantations. Eight patients were males and four were females of age range 12 to 67 years. Their diagnoses were cholestatic disease (n = 5); tumor (n = 3); hepatitis C virus cirrhosis (n = 2); Budd-Chiari syndrome (n = 1); and cystic fibrosis (n = 1). Technical complications occurred in 7/12 patients. The early vascular complications in two patients were a suprahepatic vena cava lesion occurring at liver extraction, which resulted in uncontrolled suprahepatic bleeding after liver perfusion; the recipient died during transplantation. The other case displayed a right intrahepatic portal venous thrombosis, which was treated successfully with thrombolysis and anticoagulant therapy. Early biliary complications of biliary leaks occurred in three patients: two had undergone duct-to-duct reconstructions, which were treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography that successfully managed the anastomotic and recipient cystic duct leaks with a papillotomy and stenting. In one patient with a duct-to-jejunum anastomosis, a bile leak stopped at 3 weeks but he needed surgical therapy 2 years later due to an anastomotic stricture. Severe decubitus occurred in the lumbosacral region of the subjects with operating times of 14 hours. They required necretectomy and plastic surgery. One of them with postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension also displayed wound eventration requiring reoperations. The rate of hepatic (5/12) and extrahepatic (3/12) surgical complications, as well as of 1-year survival (9/12), in our period of implementation of OLT were satisfactory to continue OLT development in Estonia.

Current outcome of heart transplantation: a 10-year single centre perspective and review

BACKGROUND

Heart transplantation (HTx), the gold standard therapy for advanced heart failure, is limited by donor availability; alternative therapies are now becoming available.

AIM

We examined the outcome of HTx with current immunosuppressive and adjunctive therapy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We analysed the outcome of 399 consecutive patients who underwent transplantation at our centre (1995-2007). Prior to HTx 23% (98) required inotropic support, 8.5% (34) an intra-aortic balloon pump and 11% (43) a ventricular assist device.

RESULTS

Actuarial patient survival was 86% at 30 days, 79% at 1 year and 62% at 10 years. Survival was similar regardless of the heart failure severity, P=0.22. The cumulative incidence of allograft vasculopathy, Costanzo grade≥2, was 7% at 5 years and 23% by 10 years with an 11% cumulative probability of requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention by 10 years. Allograft function was preserved with a mean±SD left ventricular ejection fraction of 73±7% at 1 year and 74±8% at 10 years. The cumulative incidence of malignancy by 10 years was 27% (skin malignancy 13% and post transplant lymphoproliferative diseases 10%). The cumulative incidence of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate≤45 ml/min/1.73 m2 was 42% at 1 year, 62% at 5 years and 72% at 10 years and of requiring long-term renal replacement therapy was 10.6% at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

HTx provided good medium-term survival for patients with advanced heart failure, independent of its severity. The incidence of allograft vasculopathy was lower than reported previously but malignancy and CKD remain cause for concern.

Early onset adenovirus infection after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant

Adenoviruses (AdV) are increasingly recognized as important viral pathogens in immunocompromised hosts. The clinical spectrum ranges from asymptomatic viremia to allograft dysfunction, and death. Most of the medical literature is on AdV infection in children and bone marrow transplant recipients. We report a case of AdV in an adult recipient in the first month after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant with thymoglobulin induction. This is a rare report of adenovirus infection after multiorgan transplant, and is unique in that it exhibited tissue invasive disease without any localizing signs or allograft dysfunction, while other cases in medical literature had invasive disease of the allograft with allograft dysfunction, failure, or death. In addition, this is the first report of a radiologic presentation of AdV nephritis.

Effects of acute cytomegalovirus infection on rat islet allograft survival

Transplantation of pancreatic islets is a promising therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. However, long-term islet graft survival rates are still unsatisfactory low. In this study we investigated the role of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in islet allograft failure. STZ-diabetic rats received an allogenic islet graft in combination with either an acute CMV infection or control infection. A third group received ganciclovir treatment in addition to the CMV infection. Graft function was assessed by measuring basal blood glucose levels. After sacrifice, the islet grafts were retrieved for analysis of infection and leukocyte infiltration. CMV-infected recipients demonstrated accelerated islet graft failure compared to noninfected controls. CMV infection of the graft was only observed prior to complete graft failure. Quantification of the leukocyte infiltration demonstrated increased CD8(+) T-cell and NK cell infiltration in the CMV-infected grafts compared to the controls. This suggests that CMV infection accelerates immune-mediated graft destruction. Antiviral ganciclovir treatment did not prevent accelerated graft failure, despite effectively decreasing the grade of infection. Our data confirm the recently published CITR data, which state that CMV is an independent risk factor for failure of islet grafts. Also, our data demonstrate that new approaches for preventing virus-induced islet allograft failure may be required.

CMV in critically ill patients: pathogen or bystander?

Despite broad variability in study populations, methodologies for CMV detection, and analytic methods used, multiple studies have documented frequent CMV infection in non-immunocompromised adults with critical illness due to a variety of causes. Higher rates of CMV infection in studies of seropositive patients suggest that reactivation of latent infection rather than primary infection is the main mechanism in this setting. Risk factors for CMV reactivation (other than seropositivity) have not been clearly defined and there does not appear to be a consistent association with severity of illness. Furthermore, CMV reactivation in this setting has been associated with important adverse clinical outcomes, including increased duration of mechanical ventilation, longer length of stay and all-cause mortality. There are several biologically plausible mechanisms that could link CMV reactivation with adverse outcomes, including: direct lung injury (CMV pneumonia), amplification of inflammation systemically and within the lung, or predisposition to other nosocomial infections, but clinical data in the ICU setting are limited. Further observational studies are unlikely to significantly advance our understanding of the role of CMV in critically ill patients. Given the significant impact of critical illness, limited current therapeutic options, the availability of generally well-tolerated antiviral options for CMV, and the clinical data supporting a possible pathogenic role for CMV, there is a strong rationale for a randomised controlled trial of CMV prevention as a novel means of improving the outcomes of critically ill patients.

International consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains one of the most common infections after solid organ transplantation, resulting in significant morbidity, graft loss, and occasional mortality. Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers. A panel of experts on CMV and solid organ transplant was convened by The Infectious Diseases Section of The Transplantation Society to develop evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management including diagnostics, immunology, prevention, treatment, drug resistance, and pediatric issues.

Adenovirus infections in solid organ transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adenoviruses are emerging as important viral pathogens in solid organ transplant recipients, impacting morbidity, graft survival and even mortality. This review will discuss the current understanding of the epidemiology, diagnosis and therapy of adenovirus infection in transplant recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in the field include the use of polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of adenoviral infection, a better understanding of the epidemiology, immune response and potential new therapies, including preemptive and adoptive immunotherapy strategies. Adenoviral infections appear to be common, especially in pediatric solid organ transplant. Generally well tolerated, some high-risk patients may develop disseminated disease causing graft failure, which may lead to retransplant and/or death. Antiviral therapy and immunotherapy may play a role in these patients, although prospective controlled data are not available at this time.

SUMMARY

Although new tools and a better understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors and therapies for adenovirus are beginning to materialize, prospective, controlled trials, using careful definitions, and standardized methodologies need to be performed to more fully clarify these issues in solid organ transplant recipients.

Prevention of posttransplant cytomegalovirus disease and related outcomes with valganciclovir: a systematic review

The precise impact of valganciclovir as preventive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is not fully defined. Data from studies using valganciclovir as preemptive therapy or prophylaxis for CMV in SOT recipients were synthesized for descriptive analysis. CMV disease occurred in 2.6% and 9.9% of the patients receiving valganciclovir as preemptive therapy and prophylaxis, respectively. Although the incidence of early-onset (<or=90 days posttransplant) CMV disease was only 0.8% and 1.2% in all patients and R-/D+ patients receiving valganciclovir prophylaxis, the incidence of late-onset (>90 days posttransplant) CMV disease rose up to 8.9% and 17.7% in the prophylactic group, respectively. On the contrary, no patients developed late-onset CMV disease in preemptive group. Both approaches with valganciclovir have successfully decreased CMV disease in SOT recipients. Late-onset CMV disease is a complication observed uniquely with valganciclovir prophylaxis, particularly in R-/D+ patients, but not with preemptive 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.

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.

Impact of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis on the Development of Severe Late-Cytomegalovirus Disease in High-Risk Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of prolonged prophylaxis with valganciclovir in cytomegalovirus (CMV) donor/recipient serodiscordance (D+/R-) patients, concerns about a high incidence of late and invasive CMV disease associated with mortality have emerged. We compared the characteristics of CMV disease in D+/R- patients receiving prolonged valganciclovir prophylaxis with R+ patients.

METHODS

We prospectively followed all solid organ transplant recipients from January 2004 to December 2005. CMV prophylaxis with valganciclovir or ganciclovir was administered as follows: donor- recipient serodiscordance (D+/R-), 12 weeks; induction with antithymocyte globulin or acute rejection episodes requiring steroid pulses, 15 to 30 days; and CMV R+ double kidney-pancreas, 15 days. Transplant characteristics and the development of CMV disease variables were collected for all patients. We defined 2 groups according to the risk of CMV disease: CMV donor/recipient mismatch (D+/R-) and recipient CMV-positive (R+) groups.

RESULTS

During the study period we performed 481 solid organ transplantations: 237 kidney, 34 kidney-pancreas, 157 liver, 38 heart, 13 liver-kidney, and 2 heart-kidney. Overall, 36 patients developed CMV disease (7.5%). CMV donor-recipient mismatch (D+/R-) was associated with a greater risk of CMV disease compared with CMV-positive recipients (16% vs 7%; P = .036). Prophylaxis against CMV was longer in the D+/R- group (mean days 73 vs 15; P < .001). CMV disease appeared later in the D+/R- than in R+ group (mean days 123 vs 59; P < .001). We observed a trend toward a lower incidence of tissue-invasive CMV disease among the D+/R- group compared with the R+ group without significance (14% vs 41%; P = .382). Three patients died in the first 30 days after the onset of CMV disease, all of them in the R+ group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our setting, high-risk patients (D+/R-) receiving prolonged prophylaxis with valganciclovir developed later CMV disease, but this was neither more tissue-invasive nor more life-threatening than in the R+ group.

Incidence and Clinical Features of Ganciclovir- Resistant Cytomegalovirus Disease in Heart Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

The incidence and clinical and virologic aspects of ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease have not been well-characterized in heart transplant recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent their first heart transplantation during the period from 1 January 1995 through 30 June 2005 at a single health care center. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the relationship between clinical variables and CMV disease. Portions of the UL97 gene were sequenced in patients with slow clinical and/or virologic response to ganciclovir therapy.

RESULTS

Cytomegalovirus disease developed in 32 (11.7%) of 274 patients at a median of 4.2 months after transplantation (range, 1.8-11.6 months after transplantation) and was independently associated with donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D+/R-) serostatus (adjusted hazard ratio, 6.93; P<.001). The incidence of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease was 1.5% overall (4 of 274 patients), 5% among D+/R- serostatus recipients (4 of 80 patients), and 12.5% among patients who developed CMV disease (4 of 32 patients). Ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease was significantly associated with D+/R- serostatus (4 [5%] of 80 vs. 0 [0%] of 153 patients; P=.02), greater prior exposure to ganciclovir (median duration of exposure, 150 vs. 69 days; P=.003), and substantial morbidity, including prolonged CMV-associated hospitalization (median duration of hospitalization, 66 vs. 0 days; P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

CMV disease, including ganciclovir-resistant disease, is an important clinical problem in D+/R- heart transplant recipients who receive antiviral prophylaxis. Strategies specifically designed to reduce the incidence and impact of CMV disease in this population are warranted.

Subclinical cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus viremia are associated with adverse outcomes in pediatric renal transplantation

Post-transplant clinical disease with cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is a known risk factor for graft dysfunction and lymphoproliferation. We postulate that subclinical, asymptomatic viremia also adversely impacts outcomes, and may warrant re-assessment of current monitoring and antiviral prophylaxis protocols. A single-center study was conducted on 102 pediatric (51 steroid-free and 51 matched steroid-based historical controls). Quantitative viral loads were serially monitored and correlated with outcome measures. Overall, the incidence of CMV and EBV clinical disease was 5% (1% CMV and 4% EBV); however, the incidence of subclinical viremia was 44% (12.7% CMV, 38.2% EBV, 6.9% CMV + EBV). Risk factors for subclinical viremia were EBV naivety (p = 0.07), age less than five yr (p = 0.04), lack of prophylaxis (p = 0.01), and steroid usage (p = 0.0007). Subclinical viremia was associated with lower three-yr graft function (p = 0.03), increased risk of acute rejection (odds ratio 2.07; p = 0.025), hypertension (p = 0.04), and graft loss (p = 0.03). Subclinical asymptomatic CMV and EBV viremia is a risk factor for graft injury and loss. These findings support the need for aggressive, serial viral monitoring to better determine the appropriate length of post-transplant antiviral prophylaxis, and to determine the effect of immunosuppression protocols on the development of viremia.