Search

This article discusses a case report of a lung transplant recipient who developed multi-drug resistant cytomegalovirus (CMV), including resistance to ganciclovir (GCV) and maribavir (MARI). The patient received various antiviral treatments, including valganciclovir (VGC), cidofovir (CDV), and foscarnet (FOS), but experienced adverse effects and fluctuating CMV viral load. The case highlights the emerging issue of MARI resistance in solid organ transplant recipients and the challenges in managing CMV infections in this population. The document also discusses the risks and considerations associated with the use of MARI, including the need for careful initiation and monitoring for resistance. The authors emphasize the need for further research on the effectiveness and nuances of MARI as a treatment for CMV infections. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: To review the efficacy and safety of maribavir for management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in solid organ transplant recipients. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960 to early July 2022) was performed using the following search terms: maribavir, 1263W94, and cytomegalovirus. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All relevant English-language studies were reviewed and considered, with a focus on phase 3 trials. Data Synthesis: Maribavir, an orally available benzimidazole riboside with minimal adverse effects, was originally studied for universal prophylaxis in phase 3 trials but failed to demonstrate noninferiority over placebo and oral ganciclovir. It was effective for preemptive treatment in a dose-finding Phase 2 study. Maribavir is FDA approved for treatment of refractory/resistant CMV infection based on improved response rate at 8 weeks compared with investigator-assigned therapy (IAT) when initiated at median viral loads less than approximately 10 000 IU/mL (55.7% vs 23.9%, P < 0.001). Recurrence after 8-week treatment for refractory/resistant CMV was high (maribavir 50% vs IAT 39%). Significant drug interactions exist and must be managed by a pharmacotherapy expert to prevent harm. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: The addition of maribavir to the antiviral armamentarium should improve the management of refractory/resistant CMV, allowing early transition from toxic, high-cost, intravenous agents such as foscarnet and outpatient management. Optimal timing of initiation, duration, and potential alternative uses are unclear. Conclusion: Future studies are needed to fully elucidate the role of maribavir in the management of CMV after transplant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate epidemiology, risk‐factors, and outcomes of high‐level (HL) cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia in liver transplant recipients. Methods: Adult patients receiving a liver transplant between 1/1/2017 and 9/30/2020 were evaluated. Viral loads at University of Wisconsin Health Clinical Laboratories were required to allow for numerical comparison. Primary objective was incidence and outcomes of HL CMV viremia (viral‐load > 100 000 IU/ml). Secondary objective was to elucidate risk factors to allow targeted interventions. Results: Two hundred nine patients met inclusion criteria; 175 kept their graft for at least 240 days. Of these nine patients developed HL CMV, 28 developed low‐level (LL CMV, viral‐load 250–100 000 IU/ml), and 138 did not develop CMV viremia. When comparing these three groups via classic statistical methods time from transplant to viremia was similar (HL 158 ± 77 days, LL 150 ± 76 days). Clinical factors were also similar with the exception of donor seropositivity (HL 87.5%, LL 70.4%, No CMV 49.6%, p = 0.025). HL CMV was significantly associated with graft loss (p < 0.0001) on Kaplan–Meier analysis; graft loss in the LL CMV group did not differ from the no CMV group (p = 0.96). To allow valid assessment of risk factors in the total study population (n = 209), models of time‐varying covariates were used, and Cox proportional hazards ratios were calculated. In this analysis, HL CMV was associated with a significantly increased risk of graft loss (HR 5.6, p = 0.0016). When investigating risk factors associated with HL CMV, donor seropositivity significantly increased risk (HR 8.85, 95% CI 1.13–71.43, p = 0.038). Pretransplant total bilirubin (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.998–1.07, p = 0.06) trended toward significance. Recipient seronegativity, liver disease, clinical and allocation model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD), transplant surgery duration, age, sex, induction immunosuppression, and maintenance immunosuppression were not significantly associated with development of HL CMV. Conclusion: HL CMV after liver transplant is uncommon but is associated with a significantly increased risk of graft loss that is not present in those patients who develop LL CMV or do not develop CMV viremia. Given these negative graft effects, CMV stewardship interventions targeting recipients of CMV seropositive allografts are warranted. Future larger scale studies evaluating the potential role of other factors in risk stratification are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]