Search

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]

Akoad M, Giraldo M, Monaco AP, Hanto DW, Uknis ME. Enteric drainage of a pancreas allograft is safe for patients with celiac sprue. Clin Transplant 2002: 16: 387–388. © Blackwell Munksgaard, 2002 Enteric drainage of exocrine secretions in whole organ pancreas transplantation is generally avoided in patients with pre-existing small bowel disease; however, bladder drainage is associated with a 20% rate of urinary tract-related complications. This is a case report of a type 1 diabetic patient with celiac sprue and renal failure. We performed a simultaneous cadaveric kidney pancreas transplant enterically draining the exocrine pancreas. There were no complications. The patient is now more than 6 months post-transplant with excellent function of both renal and pancreas allografts. We conclude that enteric drainage of pancreas allografts in patients with celiac sprue may be performed safely. Whole organ pancreas transplantation is being performed with greater success than ever before, mostly as a result of lessons learned from past experience (1). Enteric drainage of allograft exocrine secretions is preferred for simultaneous pancreas/kidney (SPK) recipients to avoid urinary tract complications associated with bladder drainage. However, most agree that diabetics with pre-existing bowel disease should have bladder drainage of allograft exocrine secretions, so as to prevent the devastating complication of a bowel leak. We describe here a successful case of enteric drainage of an SPK transplant in a patient with celiac sprue. We believe that, when carefully performed, enteric drainage of pancreas allografts is a safe approach for diabetic patients with celiac sprue, and may avert the serious complications associated with bladder drainage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]