Two strategies for prevention of cytomegalovirus infections after liver transplantation

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).

Cytomegalovirus infection in liver-transplanted children

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication of liver trans-plantation in children. The CMV serostatus of recipients and donors is the primary risk factor, and prophylaxis or pre-emptive strategies are recommended for high-risk patients. Graft rejection, coinfection and Epstein-Bar virus reactivation, which can lead to post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, are indirect effects of CMV infection. Assessment of CMV infection viral load should be routinely performed upon clinical suspicion. However, tissue-invasive CMV disease is not associated with CMV viraemia and requires confirmation by tissue pathology. Oral valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir are equivalent treatments, and the duration of treatment depends on factors including CMV viral load, tissue pathology, and clinical response. Risk stratification by donor and recipient status prior to transplantation and post-transplantation antiviral prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy are recommended. Adult guidelines have been established but additional study of the effectiveness of the preventive guidelines in children is needed. This review summarizes the burden, risk factors, clinical manifestations, laboratory evaluation, treatment, and prevention of CMV infection in children after liver transplantation.

Impact of cytomegalovirus infection on biliary disease after liver transplantation - maybe an essential factor

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in liver transplant (LT)_ recipients, and biliary complications occur in a large number of patients. It has been reported that CMV-DNA is more detectable in bile than in blood.

AIM

To investigate the effects of CMV infection on biliary complications by comparing the levels of CMV-DNA in the bile and blood of patients after LT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 57 patients who underwent LT, 10 of these patients had no biliary complications and 47 patients had biliary complications. We also compared the levels of CMV-DNA in patients’ bile and blood, which were sampled concurrently. We used RNAscope technology to identify CMV in paraffin-embedded liver sections.

RESULTS

CMV-DNA was not detected in bile samples and was detected in 2 blood samples from patients without biliary complications. In the 47 patients with biliary complications, CMV-DNA was detected in 22 bile samples and 8 blood samples, both bile and blood samples were positive for CMV-DNA in 6 patients. The identification rate of CMV-DNA in blood was 17.0%, and was 46.8% in bile. Moreover, tissue samples from 4 patients with biliary complications tested positive using RNAscope technology but were negative with hematoxylin and eosin staining. During the follow-up period, graft failure occurred in 13 patients with biliary complications, 8 of whom underwent retransplantation, and 3 died. CMV-DNA in bile was detected in 9 of 13 patients with graft failure.

CONCLUSION

In patients with biliary complications, the identification rate of CMV-DNA in bile was higher than that in blood. Blood CMV-DNA negative patients with biliary complications should still be monitored for CMV-related biliary tract diseases. Potential occult CMV infection may also be a contributing etiological factor in the development of graft failure.

Low-Dose Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Is Safe and Cost-Saving in CMV-Seropositive Kidney Transplant Recipients

Introduction: Observational studies suggest that low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis (450 mg daily for normal renal function) is as effective as and perhaps safer than standard-dose valganciclovir (900 mg daily) in preventing CMV infection among kidney transplant recipients. However, this practice is not supported by current guidelines due to concerns for breakthrough infection from resistant CMV, mainly in high-risk CMV donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative kidney transplant recipients. Standard-dose valganciclovir is costly and possibly associated with higher incidence of neutropenia and BKV DNAemia. Our institution adopted low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis for intermediate-risk (seropositive) kidney transplant recipients in January 2018. Research Question: To analyze the efficacy (CMV DNAemia), safety (BK virus DNAemia, neutropenia, graft loss, and death), and cost savings associated with this change. Design: We retrospectively compared the above outcomes between CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients who received low-dose and standard-dose valganciclovir, transplanted within our institution, between 1/19/2014 and 7/15/2019, using propensity score-adjusted competing risk analyses. We also compared cost estimates between the two dosing regimens, for 3 months of prophylaxis, and for different percentage of patient-weeks with normal renal function, using the current average wholesale price of valganciclovir. Results: We studied 179 CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients, of whom 55 received low-dose and 124 standard-dose valganciclovir. The majority received nonlymphocyte depleting induction (basiliximab). Low-dose valganciclovir was at least as effective and safe as, and more cost-saving than standard-dose valganciclovir. Conclusion: This single-center study contributes to mounting evidence for future guidelines to be adjusted in favor of low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients.

Primary sclerosing cholangitis as an independent risk factor for cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplant

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common infectious complications after solid organ transplant; it is associated with morbidity and mortality and with many direct and indirect effects. However, monitoring and therapeutic procedures are very heterogeneous across treatment centers. Additionally, factors that place patients at risk of CMV infection are poorly defined.

METHODS

Clinical and demographic data from 833 LT recipients and their donors were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analysis were applied. CMV infection was detected by quantitative nucleic acid testing with a lower limit of detection of 40 IU/mL.

RESULTS

In total, 192 of 833 patients (23%) experienced at least one episode of CMV infection after LT; CMV infection occurred to a large extent during the first year after transplant (70%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CMV donor-recipient risk constellation (OR 2.05, 95% CI) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) before LT (OR 3.76, 95% CI) are independent risk factors for CMV infection after LT.

CONCLUSION

Patients with high-risk serostatus, PSC, or both should be monitored more thoroughly and should receive prolonged prophylaxis against CMV infection.

Cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) represents the most common opportunistic infection in liver transplant recipients. CMV infections in post liver transplant patients cause significant morbidity and mortality, directly affecting post-transplant outcomes. This review will provide the framework for the surveillance, diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of CMV in the liver transplant population.

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.

Factors associated with immune hemolytic anemia after pediatric liver transplantation

Immune-mediated hemolytic anemia following SOT is a rare disorder, the risk factors for which are unknown. Our purpose was to analyze a seemingly increased incidence in our center with the aim to identify predisposing factors. This recipients single-center retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 96 pediatric LT between 2000 and 2013. IHA was defined as acute anemia with a positive direct antiglobulin test. Seven cases of immune-mediated hemolytic anemia were identified (incidence 8.5%). Three cases presented during the first 3 months following LT (early IHA), and 4 presented later (late IHA). All patients with late IHA required rituximab. Using univariate analysis, the following factors were associated with IHA onset: BA (P = .04), younger age (P = .04), and the use of IGL-1 preservation solution (P = .05). Late IHA was associated with viral infections occurring beyond 3 months following LT, younger age, and BA (P = .01). Overall, CMV infection was associated with the development of both early and late IHA: CMV-negative recipients who received an organ from a CMV-positive donor were more likely to develop IHA (P = .035), and de novo CMV infection during the first year post-LT was associated with late IHA (P = .03). IHA is a rare complication following pediatric LT, occurring more frequently in younger patients and patients with an initial diagnosis of BA. CMV-negative recipients and patients who experience a de novo CMV infection in the first year following LT seem particularly vulnerable. IGL-1 preservation solution may be associated with an increased likelihood of developing IHA, a novel finding which warrants further investigation.

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.