Evaluation of clinical outcomes of prophylactic versus preemptive cytomegalovirus strategy in liver transplant recipients

Management of cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the primary causes of morbidity and mortality following liver transplantation (LT). Based on current worldwide guidelines, the most effective strategies for avoiding post-transplant CMV infection are antiviral prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment. CMV- IgG serology is the established technique for pretransplant screening of both donors and recipients. The clinical presentation of CMV infection and disease exhibits variability, prompting clinicians to consistently consider this possibility, particularly within the first year post-transplantation or subsequent to heightened immunosuppression. At annual symposia to discuss CMV prevention and how treatment outcomes can be improved, evidence on the incorporation of immune functional tests into clinical practice is presented, and the results of studies with new antiviral treatments are evaluated. Although there are ongoing studies on the use of letermovir and maribavir in solid organ transplantation, a consensus reflected in the guidelines has not been formed. Determining the most appropriate strategy at the individual level appears to be the key to enhancing outcomes. Although prevention strategies reduce the risk of CMV disease, the disease can still occur in up to 50% of high-risk patients. A balance between the risk of infection and disease development and the use of immunosuppressants must be considered when talking about the proper management of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. The objective of this study was to establish a comprehensive framework for the management of CMV in patients who have had LT.

Detrimental impact of immunosuppressive burden on clinical course in patients with Cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-infection and reactivation remain a relevant complication after liver transplantation (LT). The recipient and donor serum CMV-IgG-status has been established for risk stratification when choosing various pharmaceutical regimens for CMV-prophylaxis in the last two decades. However, factors influencing course of CMV-infection in LT remain largely unknown. In this study, the impact of immunosuppressive regimen was examined in a large cohort of patients.

METHODS

All patients that underwent primary LT between 2006 and 2018 at the Charité-Universitaetsmedizin, Berlin, were included. Clinical course as well as histological and laboratory findings of patients were analyzed our prospectively maintained database. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis for impact of variables on CMV-occurrence was conducted, and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 867 patients were included in the final analysis. CMV-infection was diagnosed in 325 (37.5%) patients after transplantation. Significantly improved overall survival was observed in these patients (Log rank = 0.03). As shown by correlation and regression tree classification and regression tree analysis, the recipient/donor CMV-IgG-status with either positivity had the largest influence on CMV-occurrence. Analysis of immunosuppressive burden did not reveal statistical impact on CMV-infection, but statistically significant inverse correlation of cumulative tacrolimus trough levels and survival was found (Log rank < .001). Multivariate analysis confirmed these findings (p = .02).

DISCUSSION

CMV-infection remains of clinical importance after LT. Undergone CMV-infection of either recipient or donor requires prophylactic treatment. Additionally, we found a highly significant, dosage-dependent impact of immunosuppression (IS) on long-term outcomes for these patients, underlying the importance of minimization of IS in liver transplant recipients.

Risk Factors for Cytomegalovirus Infection and Its Impact on Survival after Living Donor Liver Transplantation in South Korea: A Nested Case-Control Study

Cytomegalovirus (CMV), a common pathogen, causes infectious complications and affects long-term survival after transplantation. Studies examining living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are limited. This study analyzed the risk factors for CMV infection and its impact on the survival of LDLT patients. A nested case–control design retrospectively analyzed data from 952 patients who underwent LDLT from 2005–2021. The incidence of CMV infection for the study cohort was 15.2% at 3 months for LDLT patients managed preemptively. Patients with CMV infections were matched with those without the infection at corresponding time points (index postoperative day) in a 1:2 ratio. Graft survival was significantly lower in the CMV infection group than in the control group. CMV infection was an independent risk factor for graft survival in the matched cohort (HR 1.93, p = 0.012). Independent risk factors for CMV infection were female sex (HR 2.4, p = 0.003), pretransplant MELD (HR 1.06, p = 0.004), pretransplant in-hospital stay (HR 1.83, p = 0.030), ABO incompatibility (HR 2.10, p = 0.009), donor macrovesicular steatosis ≥10% (HR 2.01, p = 0.030), and re-operation before index POD (HR 2.51, p = 0.035). CMV infection is an independent survival risk factor, and its risk factors should be included in the surveillance and treatment of CMV infections after LDLT.

Cytomegalovirus infection and disease in pediatric liver transplantation: Burden of disease under a preemptive therapy approach

BACKGROUND

CMV remains a frequent complication after liver transplantation. Few studies exist in children reporting the epidemiology and outcomes of CMV after LT with current prevention strategies. Our goal is to report the incidence of CMV infection and disease in pediatric LT recipients under preemptive therapy, identify risk factors, complications, and adverse reactions to treatment.

METHODS

All pediatric LT recipients from a single center (1998-2018) were included. Antigenemia pp65 (1998-2003) and QNAT or both were used to inform preemptive therapy. Cutoff value for starting treatment was Agpp65 > 10 + cells/200 000 or QNAT >1500 copies/ml or any value in high-risk recipients (D+/R-).

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen LT were analyzed. CMV infection was detected in 67% of patients, only 44 (37%) required treatment, and 5 (4%) developed CMV disease. All patients responded well to treatment, and no graft or patients were lost to CMV effects. There were no differences in mortality, CMV indirect effects, or other complications between those who required treatment and those who did not. Thirty-two percent of the patients who received antivirals developed an adverse hematological reaction. Risk factors associated with CMV infection requiring treatment were D+/R- (OR 13.9, p = .01) and fulminant hepatitis (OR 4.8, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive therapy for CMV in children is safe and effective, yields low CMV infection rates that require treatment, and minimal rates of CMV disease, without increasing CMV-related complications. Using this strategy, 63% of our patients did not receive treatment. Therefore, drug exposure, adverse reactions, and resistance risk were minimized.

Antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To conduct a meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the outcomes of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in liver transplant (LT) recipients.

METHODS

We searched databases for qualified studies up until March 2022. Finally, a meta-analysis was carried out using a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

With a total of 1834 LT patients, the pooled incidence of CMV infection and CMV disease in the overall LT recipients using antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy were 24.7% vs. 40.4% and 6.4% vs. 9.4%, respectively. Our meta-analysis exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of CMV infection due to antiviral prophylaxis when compared to preemptive therapy in the high-risk group (OR: 6.67, 95% CI: 1.73, 25.66; p = 0.006). In contrast, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of late-onset of CMV disease in preemptive therapy compared to antiviral prophylaxis in the high-risk group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.74; p = 0.009). However, the incidence of CMV disease, allograft rejection, graft loss, drug related adverse effects, opportunistic infections and mortality did not differ significantly between both the interventions (all p> 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found the use of antiviral prophylaxis, compared with preemptive therapy, is superior in controlling CMV infection and prolonging the time to CMV disease in LT recipients without an increased risk of opportunistic infections, allograft rejection, graft loss, drug related adverse effects, development of drug resistance, and mortality.

What is the optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent postoperative infectious complications after liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is well-accepted in the liver transplant (LT) setting. Nevertheless, optimal regimens to prevent bacterial, viral, and fungal infections are not defined.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent post-LT bacterial, fungal, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections, to improve short-term outcomes, and to provide international expert panel recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021244976.

RESULTS

Of 1853 studies screened, 34 were included for this review. Bacterial, CMV, and fungal antimicrobial prophylaxis were evaluated separately. Pneumocystis jiroveccii pneumonia (PJP) antimicrobial prophylaxis was analyzed separately from other fungal infections. Overall, eight randomized controlled trials, 21 comparative studies, and five observational noncomparative studies were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is recommended to prevent bacterial, CMV, and fungal infection to improve outcomes after LT. Universal antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to prevent postoperative bacterial infections. The choice of antibiotics should be individualized and length of therapy should not exceed 24 hours (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Both universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are strongly recommended for CMV prevention following LT. The choice of one or the other strategy will depend on individual program resources and experiences, as well as donor and recipient serostatus. (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Antifungal prophylaxis is strongly recommended for LT recipients at high risk of developing invasive fungal infections. The drug of choice remains controversial. (Quality of Evidence; High | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). PJP prophylaxis is strongly recommended. Length of prophylaxis remains controversial. (Quality of Evidence; Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

Characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of neutropenia after liver or kidney transplantation in children

BACKGROUND

While prior adult studies have shown that approximately 20%-38% of subjects undergoing solid-organ transplant develop neutropenia, similar analyses in pediatric subjects are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of liver transplant (LT) and kidney transplant (KT) recipients at our center during the period 2008-2018. All of the KT and none of the LT subjects during this time period had induction with either anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) or basiliximab at time of transplant. Neutropenia was defined as absolute neutrophil count (ANC) value ≤1000/mm3 .

RESULTS

One hundred subjects with LT and 82 subjects with KT were included. The incidence of neutropenia within the first year of transplant in KT was higher compared to LT (54.8% vs 39%, p = .01). The median number of hospitalizations (p = .001) and infectious complications (p = .04) was significantly higher only in the KT subjects who developed neutropenia (compared to those who did not). Multivariate analysis identified factors associated with severity of liver disease at transplant, namely h/o upper gastrointestinal bleeding (p = .02), weight deficit (p = .01), and pre-LT ANC (p = .01), along with high or moderate risk cytomegalovirus status (p = .05) as predictors of neutropenia in LT subjects. Female gender (p = .03) predicted neutropenia, while BK virus infection was protective for neutropenia (p = .04) in KT subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of and morbidity associated with neutropenia within 1 year post-transplant is higher in KT subjects compared to LT subjects. The likely reason for this is the use of induction therapy (ATG, basiliximab) at the time of transplant in KT subjects.

Prevention and Management of CMV Infections after Liver Transplantation: Current Practice in German Transplant Centers

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity in human liver transplant recipients. Anti-CMV therapeutics can be used to prevent or treat CMV in liver transplant recipients, but their toxicity needs to be balanced against the benefits. The choice of prevention strategy (prophylaxis or preemptive treatment) depends on the donor/recipient sero-status but may vary between institutions. We conducted a series of consultations and roundtable discussions with German liver transplant center representatives. Based on 20 out of 22 centers, we herein summarize the current approaches to CMV prevention and treatment in the context of liver transplantation in Germany. In 90% of centers, transient prophylaxis with ganciclovir or valganciclovir was standard of care in high-risk (donor CMV positive, recipient CMV naive) settings, while preemptive therapy (based on CMV viremia detected during (bi) weekly PCR testing for circulating CMV-DNA) was preferred in moderate- and low-risk settings. Duration of prophylaxis or intense surveillance was 3-6 months. In the case of CMV infection, immunosuppression was adapted. In most centers, antiviral treatment was initiated based on PCR results (median threshold value of 1000 copies/mL) with or without symptoms. Therefore, German transplant centers report similar approaches to the prevention and management of CMV infection in liver transplantation.

Post liver transplant recurrent and de novo viral infections

Survival following liver transplantation has changed dramatically owing to improvement in surgical techniques, peri-operative care and optimal immunosuppressive therapy. Post-Liver transplant (LT) de novo or recurrent viral infection continues to cause major allograft dysfunction, leading to poor graft and patient survival in untreated patients. Availability of highly effective antiviral drugs has significantly improved post-LT survival. Patients transplanted for chronic hepatitis B infection should receive life-long nucleos(t)ide analogues, with or without HBIg for effective viral control. Patients with chronic hepatitis C should be commenced on directly acting antiviral (DAA) drugs prior to transplantation. DAA therapy for post-LT recurrent hepatitis C infection is associated with close to 100% sustained virological response (SVR), irrespective of genotype. De novo chronic Hepatitis E infection is an increasingly recognised cause of allograft dysfunction in LT recipients. Untreated chronic HEV infection of the graft may lead to liver fibrosis and allograft failure. CMV and EBV can reactivate leading to systemic illness following liver transplantation. With COVID-19 pandemic, post-transplant patients are at risk of SARS-Co-V2 infection. Majority of the LT recipients require hospitalization, and the mortality in this population is around 20%. Early recognition of allograft dysfunction and identification of viral aetiology is essential in the management of post-LT de novo or recurrent infections. Optimising immunosuppression is an important step in reducing the severity of allograft damage in the treatment of post-transplant viral infections. Viral clearance or control can be achieved by early initiation of high potency antiviral therapy.

Evaluation of a change in cytomegalovirus prevention strategy following pediatric solid organ transplantation

BACKGROUND

An optimal cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention strategy following solid organ transplantation (SOT) remains uncertain. This study reports on the rates of CMV events following a change in a local prevention guideline involving increased surveillance, earlier transition to oral valganciclovir, and decreased CMV-immunoglobulin use.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study utilizing historical controls evaluated the rates of CMV invasive disease pre- and post-intervention among pediatric heart, liver, and kidney recipients. Outcomes were recorded for the 4 years pre- and post-intervention, 9/2009-10/2017. Logistic regression was used to estimate the risk of a CMV event.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the rates of CMV invasive disease between the two study groups (P = 1). An increase in the detection of CMV events occurred (P = .04), predominantly asymptomatic CMV infection. This increase was independently associated with increased surveillance testing among high-risk heart and liver recipients, aOR 1.08 (1.06-1.12). Surprisingly, 28.9% of CMV events occurred during antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Modification of the local CMV prevention guideline did not result in an increase in CMV invasive disease. CMV events occurred while on prophylaxis, highlighting a potential difference from adult solid organ transplant (SOT) and emphasizing the potential need for monitoring on prophylaxis in the pediatric population.

Use of Viral Load as a Surrogate Marker in Clinical Studies of Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has been the standard endpoint for clinical trials in organ transplant recipients. Viral load may be a more relevant endpoint due to low frequency of disease. We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. We found several lines of evidence to support the validity of viral load as an appropriate surrogate end-point, including the following: (1) viral loads in CMV disease are significantly greater than in asymptomatic viremia (odds ratio, 9.3 95% confidence interval, 4.6-19.3); (2) kinetics of viral replication are strongly associated with progression to disease; (3) pooled incidence of CMV viremia and disease is significantly lower during prophylaxis compared with the full patient follow-up period (viremia incidence: 3.2% vs 34.3%; P < .001) (disease incidence: 1.1% vs 13.0%; P < .001); (4) treatment of viremia prevented disease; and (5) viral load decline correlated with symptom resolution. Based on the analysis, we conclude that CMV load is an appropriate surrogate endpoint for CMV trials in organ transplant recipients.

Comparison of Preemptive Therapy and Antiviral Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus in Seropositive Liver Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Few studies have directly compared preemptive therapy (PET) and antiviral prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in CMV seropositive (R+) orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed CMV disease and clinical outcomes among 160 consecutive R+ OLT recipients who received PET (weekly plasma CMV PCR for 3 months, oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily for CMV viremia >250 IU/mL, until 2 consecutive negative weekly PCR results) and compared them with a historical cohort of 156 R+ recipients who received AP (valganciclovir, 900 mg daily for 3 months).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between PET and AP cohorts (P > 0.05 all comparisons). In the PET group, 24% (39/160) developed CMV viremia greater than 250 IU/mL at a median of 42 (range, 7-93) days post-OLT. CMV monitoring adherence in the PET cohort was 85% (1488/1760 required tests) and 86% (30/36) initiated PET within 3 days of the CMV result. By 12 months post-OLT, the incidence of CMV disease, acute allograft rejection, major infection, or death in the PET and AP cohorts was not significantly different: 2% versus 2%, 19% versus 16%, 10.5% versus 10.8%, and 5% versus 8%, respectively (P > 0.05 all comparisons). The estimated proportion of drug-exposed patients and average antiviral drug exposure were significantly lower with PET versus AP: 24% versus 100%, P < 0.001, and 15.8 versus 81 g per patient, P < 0.001, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PET is feasible in a nonresearch setting and is associated with similar CMV disease rates and other clinically relevant outcomes to AP in CMV seropositive liver transplant recipients.

New therapies for human cytomegalovirus infections

The recent approval of letermovir marks a new era of therapy for human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infections, particularly for the prevention of HCMV disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. For almost 30 years ganciclovir has been the therapy of choice for these infections and by today's standards this drug exhibits only modest antiviral activity that is often insufficient to completely suppress viral replication, and drives the selection of drug-resistant variants that continue to replicate and contribute to disease. While ganciclovir remains the therapy of choice, additional drugs that inhibit novel molecular targets, such as letermovir, will be required as highly effective combination therapies are developed not only for the treatment of immunocompromised hosts, but also for congenitally infected infants. Sustained efforts, largely in the biotech industry and academia, have identified additional highly active lead compounds that have progressed into clinical studies with varying levels of success and at least two have the potential to be approved in the near future. Some of the new drugs in the pipeline inhibit new molecular targets, remain effective against isolates that have developed resistance to existing therapies, and promise to augment existing therapeutic regimens. Here, we will describe some of the unique features of HCMV biology and discuss their effect on therapeutic needs. Existing drugs will also be discussed and some of the more promising candidates will be reviewed with an emphasis on those progressing through clinical studies. The in vitro and in vivo antiviral activity, spectrum of antiviral activity, and mechanism of action of new compounds will be reviewed to provide an update on potential new therapies for HCMV infections that have progressed significantly in recent years.

Risk-guided strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus associated complications after liver transplantation

Aim: We evaluated a risk-guided strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus-associated complications (CMV-ac) after liver transplantation (LT). Patients & methods: Forty liver graft recipients were stratified according to their CMV risk status to prophylactic (high risk, HR and group) or pre-emptive antiviral treatment (intermediate, IR, and low risk, LR and group). A detailed analysis of clinical and virological data was performed. Results: 8/40 patients were classified within the HR, 28/40 within the IR and 4/40 within the LR group. Incidence of CMV viremia was 3/8 (38%) in the HR, 9/28 (32%) in the IR and 0/5 in the LR group. Mortality rate of CMV-ac was 0%. Conclusion: A risk-guided antiviral strategy is effective to prevent severe CMV-ac up to 1 year after LT.

Low-dose valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in intermediate-risk liver transplantation recipients

Liver transplantation recipients (LTRs) who are seropositive for cytomegalovirus (CMV) (recipient seropositive [R+]) are at intermediate risk for CMV disease. A preventative strategy following transplant is considered standard of care. Current guidelines recommend high-dose valganciclovir (VGCV; 900 mg/day adjusted for renal function) for prophylaxis given limited data on the efficacy and safety of low-dose VGCV (450 mg/day adjusted for renal function). We describe our experience using low-dose VGCV prophylaxis for R+ LTRs at our institution. A single-center, retrospective study was conducted using a database of 364 LTRs over a 4-year period (2011-2014). Adult first-time R+ LTRs receiving low-dose VGCV prophylaxis were included. The primary endpoint was CMV disease at 1 year after transplant. Patients were compared with historical controls receiving high-dose VGCV prophylaxis. Secondary endpoints were biopsy-proven rejection and leukopenia on VGCV. With respect to leukopenia, patients receiving low-dose VGCV were compared with a group of D+R- patients from the database receiving high-dose VGCV. Univariate analyses were performed using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. A total of 200 R+ LTRs met inclusion criteria. Median age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-66 years), and 129 (65%) LTRs were male. Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 22 (IQR, 14-31), and 178 (89%) patients received deceased donor transplants. CMV disease occurred in only 9 (5%) patients, similar to rates in previous studies of LTRs receiving high-dose VGCV. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 18 (9%) patients. Patients received VGCV prophylaxis for a median of 3.4 (IQR, 3.1-4.3) months; 151 (76%) R+ LTRs receiving low-dose VGCV developed leukopenia. Premature VGCV discontinuation and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor use were infrequent and not significantly different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, low-dose VGCV was safe and effective for prevention of CMV disease in our cohort of 200 R+ LTR and should be considered as an option in future guidelines. Liver Transplantation 24 616-622 2018 AASLD.

Neutropenia in kidney and liver transplant recipients: Risk factors and outcomes

No studies have directly compared the key characteristics and outcomes of kidney (KTx) and liver transplantation (LTx) recipients with neutropenia. In this single-center, retrospective, cohort study, we enrolled all adult patients who received a KTx or LTx between 2000 and 2011. Neutropenia was defined as 2 consecutive absolute neutrophil count (ANC) values <1500/mm³ in patients without preexisting neutropenia. The first neutropenia episode occurring during the first year post-transplantation was analyzed. A total of 663 patients with KTx and 354 patients with LTx met the inclusion criteria. Incidence of neutropenia was 20% in KTx and 38% in LTx, respectively. High-risk CMV status and valganciclovir (VGCV) use were significant predictors of neutropenia for KTx recipients, but only VGCV use vs nonuse in LTx recipients. Neutropenia was associated with worse survival in KTx recipients (adjusted HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.18-3.22, P<.01), but not in LTx recipients (adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52-1.10, P=.15). Sixteen acute rejection episodes were associated with preceding neutropenia in KTx recipients (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.16-2.68, P=.007) and 24 acute rejection episodes in LTx recipients (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.97-2.04, P=.07). Incidence of infection was similar in patients with and without neutropenia among KTx and LTx recipients.

Cytomegalovirus Infection in Liver Transplant Recipients: Current Approach to Diagnosis and Management

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common viral infection in liver transplant recipients, affecting post-transplant patients and graft survival. Recent advances in diagnosis and management of CMV have led to marked reduction in incidence, severity, and its associated morbidity and mortality. CMV DNA assay is the most commonly used laboratory parameter to diagnose and monitor CMV infection. Current evidence suggests that both pre-emptive and universal prophylaxis approaches are equally justified in liver transplant recipients. Intravenous ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir are the most commonly used drugs for treatment of CMV disease. Most of the centre use valganciclovir prophylaxis for prevention of CMV disease in liver trasplant recipient. The aim of this article is to review the current standard of care for diagnosis and management of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients.

Treatment Experience of Severe Abdominal Infection after Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

This study aims to investigate the causes and treatment experience of severe abdominal infection after orthotopic liver transplantation. Clinical data were retrospectively analysed in perioperative severe abdominal infection of 186 orthotopic liver transplantation cases from March 2004 to November 2011. Among the 186 patients, 16 cases had severe abdominal infection: five cases had bile duct anastomotic leakage-inducing massive hydrops and infection under liver interstice, 10 cases had extensive bleeding of surgical wound leading to massive haematocele and infection around the liver, and one case had postoperative lower oesophageal fistula leakage causing massive hydrops and infection under the left diaphragm. After definite diagnosis, 12 cases underwent surgery within three days, with no death. Among the four cases that underwent surgery three days after diagnosis, one case died of multiple-organ failure five days after abdominal cavity exploration, which was performed 21 days after liver transplantation. Severe abdominal infections after liver transplantation were the most common causes of death in perioperative liver transplantation. Comprehensive treatment with efficacious antibiotics, multiple-organ support, controlled surgical removal of the lesion, and adequate drainage establishment was the key to the entire treatment.

Prophylaxis versus pre-emptive treatment for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients

This study compared the pre-emptive and the prophylactic strategies used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients and searched for associated predictive factors. Seventy-three orthotopic liver-transplant recipients who had received a transplant before November 2005 were given ganciclovir IV pre-emptively (group I) and 56 recipients who had received a transplant after November 2005 were given prophylactic valganciclovir for 3 months (group II). Demographic and biochemical parameters did not statistically vary between the groups at baseline. Monitoring of CMV DNAemia was similar in both groups. Forty-two (57.5%) patients presented with CMV infection in group I and 18 (32.1%) in group II (P < 0.004). CMV DNAemia was first detected at a median of 33 days post-transplant in group I and at 98.5 days in group II (P < 0.003), but viral loads were not significantly different. The overall incidence of CMV disease was 9.6% in group I versus 7.1% in group II (ns). Thirty-five (47.9%) patients presented with biopsy-proven acute rejection in group I and 13 (23.2%) in group II (P = 0.004). Forty (55%) patients in group I and 25 (44.6%) in group II presented with de novo post-transplant diabetes (P = 0.057). At 1-year post-transplant, global survival curves were not significantly different. Independent factors associated with CMV reactivation were an absence of CMV prophylaxis, CMV serological status of the donor, cold ischemia time, and HLA A + B + DR compatibility. CMV prophylaxis is efficacious and can prevent safely the direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients.

Cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients: Updates on clinical management

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication after liver transplantation, and it is associated with multiple direct and indirect effects. Management of CMV infection and disease has evolved over the years, and clinical guidelines have been recently updated. Universal antiviral prophylaxis and a pre-emptive treatment strategy are options for prevention. A currently-recruiting randomized clinical trial is comparing the efficacy and safety of the two prevention strategies in the highest risk D+R- liver recipients. Drug-resistant CMV infection remains uncommon but is now increasing in incidence. This highlights the currently limited therapeutic options, and the need for novel drug discoveries. Immunotherapy and antiviral drugs with novel mechanisms of action are being investigated, including letermovir (AIC246) and brincidofovir (CMX001). This article reviews the current state of CMV management after liver transplantation, including the updated practice guidelines, and summarizes the data on investigational drugs and vaccines in clinical development.

Management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common viral pathogens causing clinical disease in liver transplant recipients, and contributing to substantial morbidity and occasional mortality. CMV causes febrile illness often accompanied by bone marrow suppression, and in some cases, invades tissues including the transplanted liver allograft. In addition, CMV has been significantly associated with an increased predisposition to acute and chronic allograft rejection, accelerated hepatitis C recurrence, and other opportunistic infections, as well as reduced overall patient and allograft survival. To negate the adverse effects of CMV infection on transplant outcome, its prevention, whether through antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy, is an essential component to the management of liver transplant recipients. Two recently updated guidelines have suggested that antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy are similarly effective in preventing CMV disease in modest-risk CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients, while antiviral prophylaxis is the preferred strategy over preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV disease in high-risk recipients [CMV-seronegative recipients of liver allografts from CMV-seropositive donors (D+/R-)]. However, antiviral prophylaxis has only delayed the onset of CMV disease in many CMV D+/R- liver transplant recipients, and such occurrence of late-onset CMV disease was significantly associated with increased all-cause and infection-related mortality after liver transplantation. Therefore, a search for better strategies for prevention, such as prolonged duration of antiviral prophylaxis, a hybrid approach (antiviral prophylaxis followed by preemptive therapy), or the use of immunologic measures to guide antiviral prophylaxis has been suggested to prevent late-onset CMV disease. The standard treatment of CMV disease consists of intravenous ganciclovir or oral valganciclovir, and if feasible, reduction in pharmacologic immunosuppression. In one clinical trial, oral valganciclovir was as effective as intravenous ganciclovir for the treatment of mild to moderate CMV disease in solid organ (including liver) transplant recipients. The aim of this article is to provide a state-of-the art review of the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV infection and disease after liver transplantation.

Prevention strategies for cytomegalovirus disease and long-term outcomes in the high-risk transplant patient (D+/R-): experience from the RESITRA-REIPI cohort

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-negative recipients of a graft from a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-) are at high risk of CMV disease. Current preventive strategies include universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive therapy (PT). However, the best strategy to prevent CMV disease and achieve better long-term outcomes remains a matter of debate.

METHODS

We analyzed the incidence of CMV disease and long-term outcomes including graft dysfunction and patient mortality at 5 years after transplantation with both preventive strategies. High-risk (D+/R-) kidney and liver transplant recipients from the RESITRA cohort were included.

RESULTS

Of 2410 kidney or liver transplant patients, 195 (8.3%) were D+/R-. The final cohort included 58 liver and 102 kidney recipients. UP was given in 92 patients and 68 received PT; 10.9% and 36.8% developed CMV disease, respectively (P < 0.01). The independent risk factors for CMV disease were PT strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-6.9), kidney transplantation (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4-9.9), and cyclosporine immunosuppression (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.7). PT strategy was also a risk factor for CMV disease in both liver transplantation (HR, 11.0; 95% CI, 1.2-98.7) and kidney transplantation (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0), independently. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was a risk factor for graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-9.0). Nevertheless, no significant differences were seen in either graft dysfunction or mortality between the 2 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the benefit of the UP strategy to prevent CMV disease in D+/R- liver or kidney transplant patients. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was associated with graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation.