1
|
Vernooij RW, Michael M, Ladhani M, Webster AC, Strippoli GF, Craig JC, Hodson EM. Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 5:CD003774. [PMID: 38700045 PMCID: PMC11066972 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003774.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/05/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin Wm Vernooij
- Department of Nephrology and Hypertension and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Mini Michael
- Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Maleeka Ladhani
- Nephrology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Elizabeth Vale, Australia
| | - Angela C Webster
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Westmead Applied Research Centre, The University of Sydney at Westmead, Westmead, Australia
- Centre for Transplant and Renal Medicine, Westmead Millennium Institute, The University of Sydney at Westmead, Westmead, Australia
| | - Giovanni Fm Strippoli
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Cochrane Kidney and Transplant, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia
| | - Jonathan C Craig
- Cochrane Kidney and Transplant, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Elisabeth M Hodson
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Cochrane Kidney and Transplant, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Farkas K, Varga M, Dinnyes I, Rem L, Telkes G, Wagner L, Remport A, Piros L, Szijarto A, Huszty G. Low-Dose vs Standard-Dose Valganciclovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis After Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis. Transplant Proc 2024; 56:105-110. [PMID: 38199858 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2023.11.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prophylactic administration of valganciclovir (VG) is an accepted method for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after kidney transplantation (KTx). The standard dosage of oral VG is 900 mg/day, adjusted to renal function. There is growing evidence that low-dose 450 mg/day VG might be safe and effective. We compared low-dose vs standard-dose prophylaxis after KTx in a single-center follow-up study. METHODS Data from 603 renal transplantations at a single center were retrospectively analyzed (2011-2014, 12-month follow-up). Recipients with donor IgG positive-recipient IgG positive (D+/R+), (D+/R-), and (D-/R+) CMV serostatus were routinely treated with 450 mg/day VG for 3 months. Based on the same prophylactic dose, patients could be categorized into two groups according to their postoperative renal function: those receiving standard-dose VG due to a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (average eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2) and those receiving low-dose VG due to higher eGFR (average eGFR>60 mL/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS Estimated glomerular filtration rate-based VG serum alterations significantly affected the risk of CMV infection with a higher incidence in higher VG levels (standard-dose: 357 patients, CMV: 33 cases (9.2 %); low-dose: 246 patients, CMV: 10 cases (4.1%). The occurrence of known risk factors: serologic risk distribution and rate of induction therapy were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Treatment of an acute rejection episode influenced the infection rate significantly in the standard-dose group. As a side effect of prophylaxis, leucopenia (<3G/L) was 2.46 times higher in standard-dose vs low-dose group. CONCLUSION Low-dose VG administration is safe and non-inferior to the standard dose in the prophylaxis of CMV infection after KTx.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katalin Farkas
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Marina Varga
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Semmelweis University, Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Izabella Dinnyes
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Lili Rem
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Gabor Telkes
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Laszlo Wagner
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Adam Remport
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Laszlo Piros
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Attila Szijarto
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Gergely Huszty
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation and Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Reischig T, Vlas T, Kacer M, Pivovarcikova K, Lysak D, Nemcova J, Drenko P, Machova J, Bouda M, Sedivcova M, Kormunda S. A Randomized Trial of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Therapy in Kidney Transplant Recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2023; 34:920-934. [PMID: 36749127 PMCID: PMC10125645 DOI: 10.1681/asn.0000000000000090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2022] [Accepted: 12/26/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Although cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important factor in the pathogenesis of kidney allograft rejection, previous studies have not determined the optimal CMV prevention strategy to avoid indirect effects of the virus. In this randomized trial involving 140 kidney transplant recipients, incidence of acute rejection at 12 months was not lower with valganciclovir prophylaxis (for at least 3 months) compared with preemptive therapy initiated after detection of CMV DNA in whole blood. However, prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of subclinical rejection at 3 months. Although both regimens were effective in preventing CMV disease, the incidence of CMV DNAemia (including episodes with higher viral loads) was significantly higher with preemptive therapy. Further research with long-term follow-up is warranted to better compare the two approaches. BACKGROUND The optimal regimen for preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in kidney transplant recipients, primarily in reducing indirect CMV effects, has not been defined. METHODS This open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial of valganciclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy included kidney transplant recipients recruited between June 2013 and May 2018. After excluding CMV-seronegative recipients with transplants from seronegative donors, we randomized 140 participants 1:1 to receive valganciclovir prophylaxis (900 mg, daily for 3 or 6 months for CMV-seronegative recipients who received a kidney from a CMV-seropositive donor) or preemptive therapy (valganciclovir, 900 mg, twice daily) that was initiated after detection of CMV DNA in whole blood (≥1000 IU/ml) and stopped after two consecutive negative tests (preemptive therapy patients received weekly CMV PCR tests for 4 months). The primary outcome was the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection at 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included subclinical rejection, CMV disease and DNAemia, and neutropenia. RESULTS The incidence of acute rejection was lower with valganciclovir prophylaxis than with preemptive therapy (13%, 9/70 versus 23%, 16/70), but the difference was not statistically significant. Subclinical rejection at 3 months was lower in the prophylaxis group (13% versus 29%, P = 0.027). Both regimens prevented CMV disease (in 4% of patients in both groups). Compared with prophylaxis, preemptive therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of CMV DNAemia (44% versus 75%, P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of patients experiencing episodes with higher viral load (≥2000 IU/ml), but significantly lower valganciclovir exposure and neutropenia. CONCLUSION Among kidney transplant recipients, the use of valganciclovir prophylaxis did not result in a significantly lower incidence of acute rejection compared with the use of preemptive therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER Optimizing Valganciclovir Efficacy in Renal Transplantation (OVERT Study), ACTRN12613000554763 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomas Reischig
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Tomas Vlas
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Department of Immunology and Allergology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Martin Kacer
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Kristyna Pivovarcikova
- Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Daniel Lysak
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Nemcova
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Department of Molecular Genetic, Biopticka laboratory, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Petr Drenko
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Machova
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Mirko Bouda
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Monika Sedivcova
- Department of Molecular Genetic, Biopticka laboratory, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Stanislav Kormunda
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- Division of Information Technologies and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hellemans R, Bertels A, Wijtvliet V, Wouters K, Massart A, Bergs K, Matheeussen V, Abramowicz D. Is Polyomavirus-Associated Nephropathy More Common in Kidney Transplant Recipients Exposed to Valganciclovir? A Retrospective Single Center Analysis. Transplant Proc 2023; 55:123-128. [PMID: 36609024 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2022.10.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (PVAN) is a frequent complication in the early phase after kidney transplantation. The most important risk factor for PVAN is the intensity of immunosuppression. A recent study suggests that exposure to valganciclovir (VGC) could also be a risk factor. METHODS We performed a retrospective, single-center study to investigate the effect of valganciclovir exposure on the risk for PVAN during the first 100 days post transplant. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seronegative recipients of a CMV seropositive donor kidney received VGC prophylaxis, whereas CMV seropositive recipients were managed by a pre-emptive CMV strategy. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PVAN development with VGC treatment and strength of immunosuppressive therapy as time-dependent variables. RESULTS A total of 211 adults who received a kidney transplant between 2014 and 2019 were included. Eighteen (9%) developed PVAN. Multivariate regression analysis showed that women have a lower risk of developing PVAN (hazard ratio [HR] 0.08 (confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.58), P = .013), whereas age was associated with an increased risk for PVAN (HR 1.04 for every additional year [CI 1.00-1.08], P = .029). There was a trend toward a lower risk of PVAN for patients on reduced immunosuppressive therapy (HR 0.44 [CI 0.15-1.24], P = .12). VGC use was not associated with the risk for PVAN (HR 0.99 [CI 0.35-2.78], P = .98). CONCLUSIONS In our study, VGC exposure was not associated with the risk for PVAN. Our study is the first to reassess in depth the hypothesis that VGC treatment increases the risk of PVAN. The unique strength of this study is the correction for the degree of immunosuppression and the statistical use of time-dependent covariates. This methodological approach can provide a foundation for further studies needed to confirm our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Hellemans
- Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium; Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
| | - Andrea Bertels
- Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Veerle Wijtvliet
- Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Kristien Wouters
- Clinical Trial Center, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Annick Massart
- Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium; Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Kristof Bergs
- Department of Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Veerle Matheeussen
- Department of Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Daniel Abramowicz
- Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium; Clinical Trial Center, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ruenroengbun N, Sapankaew T, Chaiyakittisopon K, Phoompoung P, Ngamprasertchai T. 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. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2022; 12:865735. [PMID: 35433502 PMCID: PMC9010655 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.865735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 03/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Narisa Ruenroengbun
- Department of Pharmaceutics (Clinical Pharmacy), Faculty of Pharmacy, Slipakorn University, Nakornprathom, Thailand
| | - Tunlanut Sapankaew
- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
| | - Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon
- Department of Community Pharmacy and Administrations, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slipakorn University, Nakornprathom, Thailand
| | - Pakpoom Phoompoung
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Thundon Ngamprasertchai
- Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ruenroengbun N, Numthavaj P, Sapankaew T, Chaiyakittisopon K, Ingsathit A, Mckay GJ, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. Efficacy and safety of conventional antiviral agents in preventive strategies for cytomegalovirus infection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Transpl Int 2021; 34:2720-2734. [PMID: 34580930 PMCID: PMC9298054 DOI: 10.1111/tri.14122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2021] [Revised: 07/27/2021] [Accepted: 09/03/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Narisa Ruenroengbun
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Department of Pharmaceutics, Clinical Pharmacy, Slipakorn University, Nakorn Prathom, Thailand
| | - Pawin Numthavaj
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Tunlanut Sapankaew
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Department of Community Pharmacy and Administrations, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slipakorn University, Nakorn Prathom, Thailand
| | - Atiporn Ingsathit
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Gareth J Mckay
- School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Center for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - John Attia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, NSW, Australia
| | - Ammarin Thakkinstian
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Saunders U, Li M, Boddeda SR, Maher S, Ghere J, Kaptsan I, Dhital R, Velazquez V, Guo L, Chen B, Zeng Q, Schoeb TR, Cianciolo R, Shimamura M. Murine Cytomegalovirus-induced Complement-fixing Antibodies Deposit in Murine Renal Allografts During Acute Rejection. Transplantation 2021; 105:1718-1729. [PMID: 33214535 PMCID: PMC8128940 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000003548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is associated with renal allograft dysfunction and loss, particularly in combination with acute rejection. Emerging literature suggests that non-HLA antibodies may contribute to antibody-mediated rejection, but pathogen-induced antibodies have not been investigated in this context. This study examines the presence of CMV-induced antibodies in murine CMV (MCMV)-infected renal allografts during acute rejection. METHODS Intragraft immunoglobulin G (IgG) and complement C3 immunostaining were compared among allogeneic MCMV D-/R-, D+/R-, and D+/R+ renal transplants. Intragraft antibody deposition was examined in B cell-deficient recipients treated with MCMV immune sera. Antibody binding and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) of D-/R- and D+/R+ sera against infected renal tubular epithelial cells (TECs) were measured in vitro. IgG immunostaining was performed in D+/R+ allografts and native kidneys and in D+/R- allografts treated with ganciclovir to inhibit viral replication. RESULTS D+/R- and D+/R+ transplants had more abundant IgG and C3 deposition compared with D-/R- recipients. Greater IgG deposition was associated with more severe allograft injury in B cell-deficient recipients treated with MCMV immune sera compared with nonimmune sera. D+/R+ sera induced greater CDC of infected TECs compared with D-/R- sera. Native kidneys had lower IgG deposition compared with allografts, despite similar organ viral loads. Ganciclovir-treated allografts had reduced IgG deposition compared with untreated allografts. CONCLUSIONS In this murine model, complement-fixing antibodies can deposit into MCMV-infected renal allografts, are associated with allograft damage, and can induce CDC of MCMV-infected renal TECs. The allogeneic response and viral replication may also contribute to intragraft antibody deposition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ute Saunders
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham AL USA
| | - Mao Li
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham AL USA
| | - Srinivasa R. Boddeda
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Sonya Maher
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Jessica Ghere
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Irina Kaptsan
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Ravi Dhital
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Victoria Velazquez
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Lingling Guo
- Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham AL USA
| | - Bo Chen
- Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham AL USA
| | - Qiang Zeng
- Center for Regenerative Medicine, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
| | - Trenton R. Schoeb
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham AL USA
| | - Rachel Cianciolo
- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH USA
| | - Masako Shimamura
- Center for Vaccines and Immunity, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus OH USA
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jorgenson MR, Descourouez JL, Wong C, Strayer JR, Parajuli S, Rice JP, Redfield RR, Smith JA, Mandelbrot DA, Saddler CM. Cytomegalovirus antiviral stewardship in the COVID-19 Era: Increasing complexity of prophylaxis and treatment and potential mitigation strategies. Transpl Infect Dis 2021; 23:e13586. [PMID: 33595158 PMCID: PMC7995190 DOI: 10.1111/tid.13586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2020] [Revised: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common and significant complications after solid organ transplant (SOT). Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), which causes the novel betacoronavirus 2019 disease (COVID‐19), has become the first global pandemic in 100 years. The world's attention has turned to address this unanticipated development; however, the viral infection that has long plagued outcomes after solid organ transplantation still requires vigilance. With physical distancing as the key intervention to reduce the healthcare burden, and the unease related to healthcare contact within the transplant population given the associated morbidity and mortality of COVID‐19 in transplant recipients, providers have struggled to evaluate and streamline essential in‐person healthcare contact, including laboratory visits. Owing to this, the COVID‐19 pandemic has placed a significant strain on the delivery of CMV prophylaxis and treatment after solid organ transplantation. In this piece, we will describe issues our CMV antiviral stewardship service has encountered in the care of the transplant recipient with CMV during the this unprecedented time and share our expert opinion to approaches to providing optimal, evidenced based care during a pandemic associated with a seemingly unrelated viral infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margaret R Jorgenson
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jillian L Descourouez
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Cynthia Wong
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jill R Strayer
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Sandesh Parajuli
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - John P Rice
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Robert R Redfield
- Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jeannina A Smith
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Didier A Mandelbrot
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Christopher M Saddler
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Blazquez-Navarro A, Dang-Heine C, Bauer C, Wittenbrink N, Wolk K, Sabat R, Witzke O, Westhoff TH, Sawitzki B, Reinke P, Thomusch O, Hugo C, Babel N, Or-Guil M. Sex-Associated Differences in Cytomegalovirus Prevention: Prophylactic Strategy is Potentially Associated With a Strong Kidney Function Impairment in Female Renal Transplant Patients. Front Pharmacol 2020; 11:534681. [PMID: 33519427 PMCID: PMC7845412 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.534681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2020] [Accepted: 11/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Post-transplantation cytomegalovirus (CMV) syndrome can be prevented using the antiviral drug (val)ganciclovir. (Val)ganciclovir is typically administered following a prophylactic or a pre-emptive strategy. The prophylactic strategy entails early universal administration, the pre-emptive strategy, early treatment in case of infection. However, it is not clear which strategy is superior with respect to transplantation outcome; sex-specific effects of these prevention strategies are not known. We have retrospectively analyzed 540 patients from the multi-centre Harmony study along eight pre-defined visits: 308 were treated according to a prophylactic, 232 according to a pre-emptive strategy. As expected, we observed an association of prophylactic strategy with lower incidence of CMV syndrome, delayed onset and lower viral loads compared to the pre-emptive strategy. However, in female patients, the prophylactic strategy was associated with a strong impairment of glomerular filtration rate one year post-transplant (difference: -11.8 ± 4.3 ml min-1·1.73 m-2, p = 0.006). Additionally, we observed a tendency of higher incidence of acute rejection and severe BK virus reactivation in the prophylactic strategy group. While the prophylactic strategy was more effective for preventing CMV syndrome, our results suggest for the first time that the prophylactic strategy might lead to inferior transplantation outcomes in female patients, providing evidence for a strong association with sex. Further randomized controlled studies are necessary to confirm this potential negative effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arturo Blazquez-Navarro
- Department of Biology, Systems Immunology Lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Center for Translational Medicine, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Chantip Dang-Heine
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Clinical Study Center (CSC), Berlin Institute of Health, and Charitét - Universitättsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universitätt Berlin, Humboldt-Universitätt Zu Berlin, Campus Charitét Mitte Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Nicole Wittenbrink
- Department of Biology, Systems Immunology Lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Kerstin Wolk
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Psoriasis Research and Treatment Center, Institute of Medical Immunology, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Robert Sabat
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Psoriasis Research and Treatment Center, Institute of Medical Immunology, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Interdisciplinary Group of Molecular Immunopathology, Institute of Medical Immunology, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Oliver Witzke
- Klinik für Infektiologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Timm H. Westhoff
- Center for Translational Medicine, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Birgit Sawitzki
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Petra Reinke
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Center for Advanced Therapies (BeCAT), Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Oliver Thomusch
- Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christian Hugo
- Medizinische Klinik III - Bereich Nephrologie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
| | - Nina Babel
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Center for Translational Medicine, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Michal Or-Guil
- Department of Biology, Systems Immunology Lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Institute of Medical Immunology, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Limaye AP, Babu TM, Boeckh M. Progress and Challenges in the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplantation. Clin Microbiol Rev 2020; 34:34/1/e00043-19. [PMID: 33115722 PMCID: PMC7920732 DOI: 10.1128/cmr.00043-19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hosts with compromised or naive immune systems, such as individuals living with HIV/AIDS, transplant recipients, and fetuses, are at the highest risk for complications from cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Despite substantial progress in prevention, diagnostics, and treatment, CMV continues to negatively impact both solid-organ transplant (SOT) and hematologic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. In this article, we summarize important developments in the field over the past 10 years and highlight new approaches and remaining challenges to the optimal control of CMV infection and disease in transplant settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajit P Limaye
- Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Tara M Babu
- Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Overlake Medical Center, Bellevue, Washington, USA
| | - Michael Boeckh
- Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hellemans R, Abramowicz D. Cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation in 2020: moving towards personalized prevention. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2020; 37:810-816. [PMID: 33280028 DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfaa249] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-related complications after kidney transplantation remain a substantial challenge. Rather than applying one preventive strategy to all at-risk patients, we can now adapt our strategy at the individual patient level. Antiviral prophylaxis or a strict pre-emptive strategy may be optimal for patients at the highest risk for CMV, while patients at lower risk may benefit particularly from pre-emptive monitoring and the administration of therapy only if needed. CMV-specific T-cell assays may be useful for further refining the pre-transplant determination of CMV risk, and for guiding decisions about antiviral therapy need or duration. An immunosuppressive regimen including a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor reduces CMV risk and may thus be an attractive option in some patients. New antiviral agents may further expand our therapeutic arsenal in the near future, and the prospects of CMV vaccination and adoptive T-cell therapy appear to be on the horizon.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Hellemans
- Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.,Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Daniel Abramowicz
- Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.,Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
The development and implementation of stewardship initiatives to optimize the prevention and treatment of cytomegalovirus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 41:1068-1074. [DOI: 10.1017/ice.2020.203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
AbstractClassical stewardship efforts have targeted immunocompetent patients; however, appropriate use of antimicrobials in the immunocompromised host has become a target of interest. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common and significant complications after solid-organ transplant (SOT). The treatment of CMV requires a dual approach of antiviral drug therapy and reduction of immunosuppression for optimal outcomes. This dual approach to CMV management increases complexity and requires individualization of therapy to balance antiviral efficacy with the risk of allograft rejection. In this review, we focus on the development and implementation of CMV stewardship initiatives, as a component of antimicrobial stewardship in the immunocompromised host, to optimize the management of prevention and treatment of CMV in SOT recipients. These initiatives have the potential not only to improve judicious use of antivirals and prevent resistance but also to improve patient and graft survival given the interconnection between CMV infection and allograft function.
Collapse
|
13
|
Reischig T, Kacer M, Hes O, Machova J, Nemcova J, Kormunda S, Pivovarcikova K, Bouda M. Viral load and duration of BK polyomavirus viraemia determine renal graft fibrosis progression: histologic evaluation of late protocol biopsies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2020; 34:1970-1978. [PMID: 31071208 DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfz061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2018] [Accepted: 03/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polyomavirus BK (BKV) infection of the renal allograft causes destructive tissue injury with inflammation and subsequent fibrosis. METHODS Using a prospective cohort of patients after kidney transplantation performed between 2003 and 2012, we investigated the role of BKV viraemia in the development and progression of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA). The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe IFTA assessed by protocol biopsy at 36 months. RESULTS A total of 207 consecutive recipients were enrolled. Of these, 57 (28%) developed BKV viraemia with 10 (5%) cases of polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (PVAN). Transient (<3 months) BKV viraemia occurred in 70% of patients, and persistent (≥3 months) BKV viraemia in 30%. A high viral load (≥10 000 copies/mL) was detected in 18% and a low viral load (<10 000 copies/mL) in 61%, while the viral load could not be determined in 21%. Moderate-to-severe IFTA was significantly increased in high [71%; odds ratio (OR) = 12.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62-90.0; P = 0.015] or persistent BKV viraemia (67%; OR = 6.33; 95% CI 1.19-33.7; P = 0.031) with corresponding rise in 'interstitial fibrosis + tubular atrophy' scores. Only patients with transient low BKV viraemia showed similar incidence and progression of IFTA to the no-BKV group. Persistent low BKV viraemia was uncommon yet the progression of fibrosis was significant. Only recipients with PVAN experienced inferior graft survival at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that only transient low BKV viraemia does not negatively affect the progression of allograft fibrosis in contrast to excessive risk of severe fibrosis after high or persistent BKV viraemia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomas Reischig
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Martin Kacer
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Ondrej Hes
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Machova
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Nemcova
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Stanislav Kormunda
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Division of Information Technologies and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Kristyna Pivovarcikova
- Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Mirko Bouda
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common infection after organ transplant. In addition to causing a viral syndrome and infection, it also increases the risk for complications in the organ transplant, along with higher overall morbidity and mortality. Prevention and ideal treatment of CMV is paramount for optimal outcomes, both for individuals as well as for transplant programs. New guidelines and novel therapies are changing the way we manage disease. RECENT FINDINGS Several new antiviral agents have emerged in recent times, including letermovir, maribavir, and brincidofovir, enhancing our ability to prevent and treat CMV. Recent data on novel agents will be reviewed, with an emphasis on recent guidelines and best practices. SUMMARY Optimal treatment, influenced by recent advances in the field, including management of resistant virus, results in better outcomes with this significant and virulent virus.
Collapse
|
15
|
Silva JT, Fernández-Ruiz M, Aguado JM. Prevention and therapy of viral infections in patients with solid organ transplantation. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2020; 39:87-97. [PMID: 32143894 DOI: 10.1016/j.eimc.2020.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2019] [Revised: 01/13/2020] [Accepted: 01/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Solid organ transplantation (SOT) is the best treatment option for end-stage organ disease. The number of SOT procedures has been steadily increasing worldwide during the past decades. This trend has been accompanied by the continuous incorporation of new antimicrobial drugs and by the refinement of strategies aimed at minimizing the risk of opportunistic infection. Nonetheless, viral infections, which can occur at any stage of the post-transplant period, remain a clinical challenge that negatively impacts both patient and graft outcomes. This review offers an overview of the most relevant viral infections in the SOT population, with a focus on herpesviruses (cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, varicella-zoster virus, and herpes simplex virus 1 and 2) and polyomaviruses (human BK polyomavirus). In addition, the currently recommended prophylactic and treatment approaches are summarized, as well as the new antiviral agents in different phases of clinical development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jose Tiago Silva
- Unit of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Universitario "12 de Octubre", Instituto de Investigación Hospital "12 de Octubre" (imas12), School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mario Fernández-Ruiz
- Unit of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Universitario "12 de Octubre", Instituto de Investigación Hospital "12 de Octubre" (imas12), School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - José María Aguado
- Unit of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Universitario "12 de Octubre", Instituto de Investigación Hospital "12 de Octubre" (imas12), School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Reischig T, Kacer M, Hes O, Machova J, Nemcova J, Lysak D, Jindra P, Pivovarcikova K, Kormunda S, Bouda M. BK polyomavirus and valganciclovir: Highly suspected association urgently calling for a new randomized trial. Am J Transplant 2019; 19:3434-3435. [PMID: 31529778 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15598] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Tomas Reischig
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Martin Kacer
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Ondrej Hes
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Machova
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Nemcova
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Daniel Lysak
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Pavel Jindra
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Kristyna Pivovarcikova
- Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Stanislav Kormunda
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Division of Information Technologies and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Mirko Bouda
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Reischig T, Kacer M, Hes O, Machova J, Nemcova J, Lysak D, Jindra P, Pivovarcikova K, Kormunda S, Bouda M. Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies and the risk of BK polyomavirus viremia and nephropathy. Am J Transplant 2019; 19:2457-2467. [PMID: 31220412 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2019] [Revised: 06/11/2019] [Accepted: 06/13/2019] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Polyomavirus BK (BKV) is the cause of polyomavirus-associated nephropathy resulting in premature graft loss. There are limited data regarding the role of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and its prevention in developing BKV viremia and PVAN. In a prospective study, we analyzed 207 consecutive renal transplant recipients previously enrolled in 2 randomized trials evaluating different CMV prevention regimens with routine screening for BKV and CMV. Of these, 59 received valganciclovir and 100 valacyclovir prophylaxis; 48 patients were managed by preemptive therapy. At 3 years, the incidence of BKV viremia and PVAN was 28% and 5%, respectively. CMV DNAemia developed in 55% and CMV disease in 6%. Both BKV viremia (42% vs 23% vs 21%, P = .006) and PVAN (12% vs 2% vs 2%, P = .011) were increased in patients treated with valganciclovir prophylaxis compared to valacyclovir and preemptive therapy. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression, valganciclovir prophylaxis was independent predictor of BKV viremia (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.38, P = .002) and PVAN (HR = 4.73, P = .026). In contrast, the risk of subsequent BKV viremia was lower in patients with antecedent CMV DNAemia (HR = 0.50, P = .018). These data suggest valganciclovir prophylaxis may be associated with increased risk of BKV viremia and PVAN. CMV DNAemia did not represent a risk for BKV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomas Reischig
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Martin Kacer
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Ondrej Hes
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Machova
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Nemcova
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Daniel Lysak
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Pavel Jindra
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Kristyna Pivovarcikova
- Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Stanislav Kormunda
- Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Division of Information Technologies and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| | - Mirko Bouda
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, and Teaching Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.,Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|