Intragraft cytomegalovirus infection: a randomized trial of valacyclovir prophylaxis versus pre-emptive therapy in renal transplant recipients

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.

Transition from antigenemia to quantitative nucleic acid amplification testing in cytomegalovirus-seropositive kidney transplant recipients receiving preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus infection

Due to the high costs, the strategy to reduce the impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) after kidney transplant (KT) involves preemptive treatment in low and middle-income countries. Thus, this retrospective cohort study compared the performance of antigenemia transitioned to quantitative nucleic acid amplification testing, RT-PCR, in CMV-seropositive KT recipients receiving preemptive treatment as a strategy to prevent CMV infection. Between 2016 and 2018, 363 patients were enrolled and received preemptive treatment based on antigenemia (n = 177) or RT-PCR (n = 186). The primary outcome was CMV disease. Secondarily, the CMV-related events were composed of CMV-infection and disease, which occurred first. There were no differences in 1-year cumulative incidence of CMV-disease (23.7% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.41), CMV-related events (50.8% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.20), neither in time to diagnosis (47.0 vs. 47.0 days) among patients conducted by antigenemia vs. RT-PCR, respectively. The length of CMV first treatment was longer with RT-PCR (20.0 vs. 27.5 days, p < 0.001), while the rate of retreatment was not different (14.7% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.48). In the Cox regression, acute rejection within 30 days was associated with an increased the risk (HR = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.12-4.89; p = 0.024), while each increase of 1 mL/min/1.73 m² of 30-day eGFR was associated with a 2% reduction risk of CMV-disease (HR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.97-0.99; p = 0.001). In conclusion, acute rejection and glomerular filtration rate are risk factors for CMV disease, showing comparable performance in the impact of CMV-related events between antigenemia and RT-PCR for preemptive treatment.

Antithymocyte induction dosing and incidence of opportunistic viral infections using steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is limited literature evaluating rATG induction dosing and incidence of opportunistic viral infections when using steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective, study compared high rATG (>4.5 mg/kg) versus low (<4.5 mg/kg) induction dosing and the overall incidence of early opportunistic viral infection at 180 days in the setting of maintenance immunosuppression consisting of tacrolimus, mycophenolate, rapid steroid withdrawal, and a tiered antiviral prevention strategy based on donor-recipient Cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were included; 76 patients received low-dose and 133 patients received high-dose rATG. Incidence of overall opportunistic viral infection occurred more frequently in patients who received high compared to low dose (29.8% vs 25% p = .030). Incidence of CMV infection was also significantly increased in the high-dose group (31.6% vs 18.4% p = .039). In a multivariable model, rATG dose, as a continuous variable, remained a significant independent predictor of infection along with CMV risk (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.09) controlling for age and CMV risk. There were no differences in graft-related outcomes at 180 days.

CONCLUSION

Higher cumulative rATG induction dose was associated with increased incidence of opportunistic viral infections, in the setting of a steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression in the early post-transplant period.

The Third International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid-organ Transplantation

Despite recent advances, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections remain one of the most common complications affecting solid organ transplant recipients, conveying higher risks of complications, graft loss, morbidity, and mortality. Research in the field and development of prior consensus guidelines supported by The Transplantation Society has allowed a more standardized approach to CMV management. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened to expand and revise evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management including prevention, treatment, diagnostics, immunology, drug resistance, and pediatric issues. Highlights include advances in molecular and immunologic diagnostics, improved understanding of diagnostic thresholds, optimized methods of prevention, advances in the use of novel antiviral therapies and certain immunosuppressive agents, and more savvy approaches to treatment resistant/refractory disease. The following report summarizes the updated recommendations.

Use of Valacyclovir for the treatment of cytomegalovirus antigenemia after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Valacyclovir has been used for prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We investigated the efficacy and safety of high-dose Valacyclovir as pre-emptive therapy in patients with CMV antigenemia after HSCT.

METHODS

In a retrospective single center study of 61 patients, we compared the rates of viral clearance, recurrent antigenemia and adverse events in patients with pp65 CMV antigenemia who received high dose Valacyclovir (n = 15), Valganciclovir (n = 16), and Foscarnet (n = 30).

RESULTS

Overall, 60/61 (98 %) of cases achieved CMV antigenemia clearance by day 28, and no patient developed CMV disease. After adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, CMV serological status, donor type, CMV antigen level, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) therapy, and conditioning regimen, there were no significant differences in the rates of viral clearance at day 14 in patients who received Valganciclovir (0.18, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.15, p = 0.17) and Foscarnet (OR 0.22, 95 % CI 0.03 to 2.40, p = 0.22), compared with Valacyclovir (assigned OR = 1.00). Recurrent antigenemia by day 180 after clearance of the initial CMV episode occurred in 34/61 (56 %) of patients. Using the multivariate model adjusting for the same covariates, there were also no significant differences in secondary episodes of CMV between treatment groups. With regards to adverse effect monitoring, Foscarnet led to significantly increased creatinine levels (P = 0.009), while Valganciclovir led to significant decrease in neutrophil counts (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

High dose Valacyclovir is a potential alternative to Valganciclovir and Foscarnet in the stable post-HSCT patient who has cytopenia and is not keen for inpatient treatment of CMV antigenemia.

Randomized trial of valganciclovir versus valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus in renal transplantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Both valganciclovir and high-dose valacyclovir are recommended for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis after renal transplantation. A head-to-head comparison of both regimens is lacking. The objective of the study was to compare valacyclovir prophylaxis with valganciclovir, which constituted the control group.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In a randomized, open-label, single-center trial, recipients of renal transplants (recipient or donor cytomegalovirus-seropositive) were randomly allocated (1:1) to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (2 g four times daily) or valganciclovir (900 mg daily). Enrollment occurred from November of 2007 to April of 2012. The primary end points were cytomegalovirus DNAemia and biopsy-proven acute rejection at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients were assigned to valacyclovir (n=59) or valganciclovir prophylaxis (n=60). Cytomegalovirus DNAemia developed in 24 (43%) of 59 patients in the valacyclovir group and 18 (31%) of 60 patients in the valganciclovir group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 2.54; P=0.36). The incidence of cytomegalovirus disease was 2% with valacyclovir and 5% with valganciclovir prophylaxis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.01 to 5.90; P=0.36). Significantly more patients with valacyclovir prophylaxis developed biopsy-proven acute rejection (18 of 59 [31%] versus 10 of 60 [17%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 5.65; P=0.03). The incidence of polyomavirus viremia was higher in the valganciclovir group (18% versus 36%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.96; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Valganciclovir shows no superior efficacy in cytomegalovirus DNAemia prevention compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis. However, the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection is higher with valacyclovir.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir in cytomegalovirus prevention in solid organ transplantation

Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection using antiviral prophylaxis or the pre-emptive therapy approach is an integral part of management of patients after solid organ transplantation. Regarding renal transplantation, valacyclovir is currently the only antiviral agent recommended for prophylaxis as an alternative to valganciclovir. This review article discusses studies documenting the efficacy and safety of valacyclovir prophylaxis as well as those comparing valacyclovir with other prophylactic regimens or with pre-emptive therapy. Also addressed are the economic aspects supporting the cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir prophylaxis and demonstrating lower costs compared with other cytomegalovirus preventive strategies.

Updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) continues to be one of the most common infections after solid-organ transplantation, resulting in significant morbidity, graft loss, and adverse outcomes. Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers but has been become more standardized by publication of consensus guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Section of The Transplantation Society. An international panel of experts was reconvened in October 2012 to revise and expand evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management, including diagnostics, immunology, prevention, treatment, drug resistance, and pediatric issues. The following report summarizes the recommendations.

Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of pre-emptive treatment with antiviral medications in preventing symptomatic CMV disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 16 January 2013) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pre-emptive treatment compared with placebo, no specific treatment or with antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors assessed the quality and extracted all data. Analyses used a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 eligible studies (1098 participants). Of these, six investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or treatment of CMV when disease occurred (standard care), eight looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, and one reported on oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment.Assessment of risk of bias identified that the processes reported for sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in only five and three studies, respectively. All studies were considered to be at low risk of attrition bias, and seven studies were considered to be at low risk of bias for selective reporting. Only one study reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel; no study reported blinding of outcome assessment.Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease (6 studies, 288 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80) but not acute rejection (3 studies, 185 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.12) or all-cause mortality (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30). Comparative studies of pre-emptive therapy versus prophylaxis showed no significant differences in preventing CMV disease between pre-emptive and prophylactic therapy (7 studies, 753 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.74) but there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 63%). Leucopenia was significantly less common with pre-emptive therapy compared with prophylaxis (6 studies, 729 participants: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90). Other adverse effects did not differ significantly or were not reported. There were no significant differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, graft loss, acute rejection and infections other than CMV.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few RCTs have evaluated the effects of pre-emptive therapy to prevent CMV disease. Pre-emptive therapy is effective compared with placebo or standard care. Despite the inclusion of five additional studies in this update, the efficacy of pre-emptive therapy compared with prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease remains unclear due to significant heterogeneity between studies. Additional head-to-head studies are required to determine the relative benefits and harms of pre-emptive therapy and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

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 with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library to February 2004 for the first version of this review. The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register was searched to February 2007 and to July 2011 for the first and current updates of the review without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications and comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and by mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted, and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 studies (4342 participants). Risk of bias attributes were poorly performed or reported with low risk of bias reported for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting in 25% or fewer studies.Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 studies; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 studies; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 studies; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss.Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the relative benefit of treatment (risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality) by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs.Neurological dysfunction was more common with ganciclovir and valaciclovir compared with placebo/no treatment. In direct comparison studies, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60) and leucopenia was more common with aciclovir. Valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir. The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir/ganciclovir did not differ from valaciclovir in three small studies. Extended duration prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease compared with three months therapy (2 studies; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35). Leucopenia was more common with extended duration prophylaxis but severe treatment associated adverse effects did not differ between extended and three month durations of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. These data suggest that antiviral prophylaxis should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

Assessment of Cytomegalovirus Hybrid Preventative Strategy in Pediatric Heart Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Prevention strategies for cytomegalovirus (CMV) in pediatric transplant recipients are sparsely reported. A hybrid strategy that combines prophylaxis with preemptive therapy using serial CMV viral load monitoring is an emerging option. We report our clinical outcomes with a hybrid strategy in pediatric heart transplant recipients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for pediatric heart transplant recipients who received a hybrid strategy of 2-4 weeks intravenous ganciclovir followed by serial whole blood CMV monitoring from 2002 to 2010. Subject demographics, medications, drug levels, serial CMV viral loads, intravascular ultrasound and angiography reports, and histopathology were collected. Descriptive statistics and patient groups were compared using χ(2), Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

Twelve females and 13 males, ranging from 4 months to 19 years of age, underwent 26 heart transplants. Mean follow-up was 39 months (range, 5-94 months). Fourteen (54%) subjects were CMV donor (D) + /recipient (R) - , 8 (31%) were D + /R + , and 4 (15%) were D - /R + . Six subjects (23%) died of complications unrelated to CMV. Median prophylaxis duration was 25 days (range, 7-70 days). Ten (38%) subjects developed CMV infection: 1 subject had 2 episodes of CMV syndrome, and 1 subject had 2 episodes CMV. Although 6 of 14 patients with coronary artery vasculopathy had prior CMV, no association was found (P = .81). Median time to first CMV DNAemia was 2.3 months (range, 9 days to 24.8 months). Median time to viral load clearance was 29 days (range, 4-233 days). In addition, 25 D - /R- patients were transplanted and received no prophylaxis; 2 (8%) patients developed CMV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric heart transplant recipients who were at risk for CMV and treated with a novel preventative hybrid strategy developed CMV infection, syndrome, and disease at rates similar to those reported in literature for prophylactic strategies.

Advances in cytomegalovirus-preventive strategies in solid organ transplantation: defending pre-emptive therapy

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important part of clinical care provided to patients after solid organ transplantation. While the optimal preventive strategy has not been defined, most centers rely on universal prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy. This article comments on recent studies designed to identify strategies that effectively reduce the incidence of late-onset CMV disease as the main problem associated with prophylaxis, and on recent data regarding the development of CMV-specific immunity depending on the CMV-preventive regimen used. Despite an apparent trend to prefer prophylaxis in clinical practice, this approach does not seem to be based on robust evidence.

Cytomegalovirus replication kinetics in solid organ transplant recipients managed by preemptive therapy

After allotransplantation, cytomegalovirus (CMV) may be transmitted from the donor organ, giving rise to primary infection in a CMV negative recipient or reinfection in one who is CMV positive. In addition, latent CMV may reactivate in a CMV positive recipient. In this study, serial blood samples from 689 kidney or liver transplant recipients were tested for CMV DNA by quantitative PCR. CMV was managed using preemptive antiviral therapy and no patient received antiviral prophylaxis. Dynamic and quantitative measures of viremia and treatment were assessed. Median peak viral load, duration of viremia and duration of treatment were highest during primary infection, followed by reinfection then reactivation. In patients who experienced a second episode of viremia, the viral replication rate was significantly slower than in the first episode. Our data provide a clear demonstration of the immune control of CMV in immunosuppressed patients and emphasize the effectiveness of the preemptive approach for prevention of CMV syndrome and end organ disease. Overall, our findings provide quantitative biomarkers which can be used in pharmacodynamic assessments of the ability of novel CMV vaccines or antiviral drugs to reduce or even interrupt such transmission.

Endorsement of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines on kidney transplantation: a European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement

KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) is an international independent body aiming to 'improve the care and outcomes of kidney disease patients worldwide, through the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines'. Recently, the KDIGO work group has produced comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for the care of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). The guideline makes recommendations for immunosuppression, graft monitoring, as well as prevention and treatment of infection, cardiovascular disease, malignancy and other complications that are common in KTRs, including haematological and bone disorders. Because most guidelines were 'soft' rather than 'strong', and because global guidelines need to be adapted and implemented into the regional context where they are used, the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) Advisory Board appointed a work group of transplant nephrologists and surgeons to review the newest KDIGO guideline and comment on its relevance and applicability for European KTRs. In this article, we concentrate only on those guidelines which we considered worth amending or adapting. All guidelines not mentioned are fully endorsed.