Valganciclovir versus valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus: an economic perspective

The Cost-effectiveness of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Therapy in CMV R+ Kidney Transplant Recipients Over the First Year Posttransplantation

Background

In kidney transplant recipients with positive serology (R+) for the cytomegalovirus (CMV), 2 strategies are used to prevent infection, whose respective advantages over the other are still debated. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of antiviral prophylaxis against CMV versus preemptive therapy, considering CMV infection-free survival over the first year posttransplantation as the main clinical outcome.

Methods

Clinical, laboratory, and economic data were collected from 186 kidney transplant patients CMV (R+) included in the cohort study (85 patients who benefited from CMV prophylaxis and 101 from preemptive therapy). Costs were calculated from the hospital perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ5D form. Using nonparametric bootstrapping, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost utility were estimated (euros) for each case of infection avoided and each QALY gained for 1 y, respectively.

Results

Prophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of CMV infection over the first year posttransplantation (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.37, P < 0.01). Compared with preemptive therapy, prophylaxis saved financial resources (€1155 per patient) and was more effective (0.42 infection avoided per patient), resulting in an ICER = €2769 per infection avoided. Prophylaxis resulted in a net gain of 0.046 in QALYs per patient and dominated over preemptive therapy with €1422 cost-saving for 1 QALY gained.

Conclusions

This study shows that CMV prophylaxis, although considered as a more expensive strategy, is more cost-effective than preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV infections in renal transplant patients. Prophylaxis had a positive effect on quality of life at reasonable costs and resulted in net savings for the hospital.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and Safety of 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.

Evaluation of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in low and intermediate risk kidney transplant recipients receiving lymphocyte-depleting induction

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity in kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Historically at our institution, KTR with low and intermediate CMV risk received 6 months of valganciclovir if they received lymphocyte depleting induction therapy. This study evaluates choice and duration of CMV prophylaxis based on donor (D) and recipient (R) CMV serostatus and the incidence of post-transplant CMV viremia in low (D-/R-) and intermediate (R+) risk KTR receiving lymphocyte-depleting induction therapy. A protocol utilizing valacyclovir for 3 months for D-/R- and valganciclovir for 3 months for R+ was evaluated. Adult D-/R- and R+ KTR receiving anti-thymocyte globulin, rabbit or alemtuzumab induction from 8/20/2016 to 9/30/2018 were evaluated through 1 year post-transplant. Patients were excluded if their CMV serostatus was D+/R-, received a multi-organ transplant, or received basiliximab. Seventy-seven subjects met the inclusion criteria: 25 D-/R- (4 historic group, 21 experimental group) and 52 R+ (31 historic, 21 experimental). No D-/R- patients experienced CMV viremia. Among the R+ historic and experimental groups, there was no significant difference in viremia incidence (35.5% vs 52.4%; P = .573). Of these cases, the peak viral load was similar between the groups (median [IQR], 67 [<200-444] vs <50 [<50-217]; P = .711), and there was no difference in the incidence of CMV syndrome (16.1% vs 14.3%; P = 1.000) or CMV related hospitalization (12.9% vs 14.3%; P = 1.000). No patient experienced tissue invasive disease. These results suggest limiting valganciclovir exposure may be possible in low and intermediate risk KTR receiving lymphocyte-depleting induction therapy with no apparent impact on CMV-related outcomes.

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.

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.

Approved Antiviral Drugs over the Past 50 Years

Since the first antiviral drug, idoxuridine, was approved in 1963, 90 antiviral drugs categorized into 13 functional groups have been formally approved for the treatment of the following 9 human infectious diseases: (i) HIV infections (protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors, entry inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and acyclic nucleoside phosphonate analogues), (ii) hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections (lamivudine, interferons, nucleoside analogues, and acyclic nucleoside phosphonate analogues), (iii) hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections (ribavirin, interferons, NS3/4A protease inhibitors, NS5A inhibitors, and NS5B polymerase inhibitors), (iv) herpesvirus infections (5-substituted 2'-deoxyuridine analogues, entry inhibitors, nucleoside analogues, pyrophosphate analogues, and acyclic guanosine analogues), (v) influenza virus infections (ribavirin, matrix 2 protein inhibitors, RNA polymerase inhibitors, and neuraminidase inhibitors), (vi) human cytomegalovirus infections (acyclic guanosine analogues, acyclic nucleoside phosphonate analogues, pyrophosphate analogues, and oligonucleotides), (vii) varicella-zoster virus infections (acyclic guanosine analogues, nucleoside analogues, 5-substituted 2'-deoxyuridine analogues, and antibodies), (viii) respiratory syncytial virus infections (ribavirin and antibodies), and (ix) external anogenital warts caused by human papillomavirus infections (imiquimod, sinecatechins, and podofilox). Here, we present for the first time a comprehensive overview of antiviral drugs approved over the past 50 years, shedding light on the development of effective antiviral treatments against current and emerging infectious diseases worldwide.