Less renal allograft fibrosis with valganciclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus compared to high-dose valacyclovir: a parallel group, open-label, randomized controlled trial

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Low-Dose vs Standard-Dose Valganciclovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis After Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

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.

A Randomized Trial of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Therapy in Kidney Transplant Recipients

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 .

Is Polyomavirus-Associated Nephropathy More Common in Kidney Transplant Recipients Exposed to Valganciclovir? A Retrospective Single Center Analysis

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of −20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −36.09% to −4.98%), −19.3% (95% CI = −32.7% to −5.93%), and −10.4% (95% CI = −19.7% to −0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.

Efficacy and safety of conventional antiviral agents in preventive strategies for cytomegalovirus infection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in kidney transplantation (KT). Antiviral-agents are used as universal prophylaxis. Our purpose aimed to compare and rank efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL were used from inception to September 2020 regardless language restriction. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the CMV infection/disease prophylaxis among antiviral-agents in adult KT recipients. Of 24 eligible RCTs, prophylactic valganciclovir (VGC) could significantly lower the overall CMV infection and disease risks than placebo with pooled risk differences (RDs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of -0.36 (-0.54, -0.18) and -0.28 (-0.48, -0.08), respectively. Valacyclovir (VAC) and ganciclovir (GC) significantly decreased risks with the corresponding RDs of -0.25 (-0.32, -0.19) and -0.30 (-0.37, -0.22) for CMV infection and -0.26 (-0.40, -0.12) and -0.22 (-0.31, -0.12) for CMV disease. For subgroup analysis by seropositive-donor and seronegative-recipient (D+/R-), VGC and GC significantly lowered the risk of CMV infection/disease with RDs of -0.42 (-0.84, -0.01) and -0.35 (-0.60, -0.12). For pre-emptive strategies, GC lowered the incidence of CMV disease significantly with pooled RDs of -0.33 (-0.47, -0.19). VGC may be the best in prophylaxis of CMV infection/disease follow by GC. VAC might be an alternative where VGC and GC are not available.

Murine Cytomegalovirus-induced Complement-fixing Antibodies Deposit in Murine Renal Allografts During Acute Rejection

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.

Cytomegalovirus antiviral stewardship in the COVID-19 Era: Increasing complexity of prophylaxis and treatment and potential mitigation strategies

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.

Sex-Associated Differences in Cytomegalovirus Prevention: Prophylactic Strategy is Potentially Associated With a Strong Kidney Function Impairment in Female Renal Transplant Patients

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.

Progress and Challenges in the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplantation

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.

Cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation in 2020: moving towards personalized prevention

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.

The development and implementation of stewardship initiatives to optimize the prevention and treatment of cytomegalovirus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients

Classical 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.

Viral load and duration of BK polyomavirus viraemia determine renal graft fibrosis progression: histologic evaluation of late protocol biopsies

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.

Updates on antiviral drugs for cytomegalovirus prevention and treatment

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.

Prevention and therapy of viral infections in patients with solid organ transplantation

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.

Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies and the risk of BK polyomavirus viremia and nephropathy

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.