Search

Background: The optimal regimen for prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after kidney and/or pancreas transplantation remains unclear. We compared the effectiveness of three months of oral ganciclovir (3 g/day) versus low-dose valganciclovir (450 mg/day) for CMV prophylaxis., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients at our center who received kidney and/or pancreas transplants between January 2000 and April 2003. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the relationship between baseline covariates, including type of CMV prophylaxis, and time to development of CMV disease., Results: Of the 500 patients (295 ganciclovir, 205 valganciclovir), 22 patients (4.4%) developed CMV disease (mean time to CMV disease, 163+/-85 days). Sixteen of the ganciclovir patients (5.4%) and six of the valganciclovir patients (2.9%) developed CMV disease (P=0.18). By CMV serostatus, the incidence of CMV disease during the first posttransplant year was 8.5% among donor-seropositive, recipient-seronegative (D+/R-) patients, 8.6% among D+/R+ patients, 2.9% among D-/R+ patients, 1.0% among D-/R- patients, and 0.9% among patients for whom documentation of CMV serostatus was incomplete. In the unadjusted Cox proportional hazards analysis, race/ethnicity, type of transplant, type of antiviral prophylaxis, CMV serostatus, and use of mycophenolate mofetil were each associated with risk of developing CMV disease. In the adjusted, multivariable model, only CMV serostatus was associated with development of CMV disease., Conclusions: Three months of low-dose valganciclovir (450 mg/day) was as effective as ganciclovir (3 g/day) for prophylaxis of CMV disease after kidney and/or pancreas transplantation.

Background Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections that are refractory or resistant (RR) to available antivirals ([val]ganciclovir, foscarnet, cidofovir) are associated with higher mortality in transplant patients. Maribavir is active against RR CMV strains. Methods Hematopoietic-cell or solid-organ transplant recipients ≥12 years old with RR CMV infections and plasma CMV deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ≥1000 copies/mL were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-daily dose-blinded maribavir 400, 800, or 1200 mg for up to 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed undetectable plasma CMV DNA within 6 weeks of treatment. Safety analyses included the frequency and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results From July 2012 to December 2014, 120 patients were randomized and treated (40 per dose group): 80/120 (67%) patients achieved undetectable CMV DNA within 6 weeks of treatment (95% confidence interval, 57–75%), with rates of 70%, 63%, and 68%, respectively, for maribavir 400, 800, and 1200 mg twice daily. Recurrent on-treatment CMV infections occurred in 25 patients; 13 developed mutations conferring maribavir resistance. Maribavir was discontinued due to adverse events in 41/120 (34%) patients, and 17/41 discontinued due to CMV infections. During the study, 32 (27%) patients died, 4 due to CMV disease. Dysgeusia was the most common TEAE (78/120; 65%) and led to maribavir discontinuation in 1 patient. Absolute neutrophil counts <1000/µL were noted in 12/106 (11%) evaluable patients, with rates similar across doses. Conclusions Maribavir ≥400 mg twice daily was active against RR CMV infections in transplant recipients; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01611974. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients causes both ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘indirect’’ effects including allograft rejection, decreased graft and patient survival, and predisposition to opportunistic infections and malignancies. Options for CMV prevention include pre-emptive therapy, whereby anti-CMV agents are administered based on sensitive viral assays, or universal prophylaxis of all at-risk patients. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficacy, costs, and side effects. Standards of care for prophylaxis have not been established. Methods: A committee of international experts was convened to review the available data regarding CMV prophylaxis and to compare preventative strategies for CMV after transplantation from seropositive donors or in seropositive recipients. Results: Pre-emptive therapy requires frequent monitoring with subsequent treatment of disease and associated costs, while universal prophylaxis results in greater exposure to potential toxicities and costs of drugs. The advantages of prophylaxis include suppressing asymptomatic viremia and prevention of both direct and indirect effects of CMV infection. Meta analyses reveal decreased in mortality for patients receiving CMV prophylaxis. Costs associated with prophylaxis are less than for routine monitoring and pre-emptive therapy. The optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis remains undefined. Extended prophylaxis may improve clinical outcomes in the highest-risk patient populations including donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative renal transplants and in CMV-infected lung and heart transplantation. Conclusions: Prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in transplant recipients, affecting both allograft and patient survival. More studies are necessary to define optimal prophylaxis regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]