Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies in seropositive kidney transplant recipients: an insight into current clinical practice

There is notable heterogeneity in the implementation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention practices among CMV‐seropositive (R+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. In this prospective observational study, we included 387 CMV R+ KT recipients from 25 Spanish centers. Prevention strategies (antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy) were applied according to institutional protocols at each site. The impact on the 12‐month incidence of CMV disease was assessed by Cox regression. Asymptomatic CMV infection, acute rejection, graft function, non‐CMV infection, graft loss, and all‐cause mortality were also analyzed (secondary outcomes). Models were adjusted for a propensity score (PS) analysis for receiving antiviral prophylaxis. Overall, 190 patients (49.1%) received preemptive therapy, 185 (47.8%) antiviral prophylaxis, and 12 (3.1%) no specific intervention. Twelve‐month cumulative incidences of CMV disease and asymptomatic infection were 3.6% and 39.3%, respectively. Patients on prophylaxis had lower incidence of CMV disease [PS‐adjusted HR (aHR): 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01–0.79] and asymptomatic infection (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.29–0.72) than those managed preemptively, with no significant differences according to the duration of prophylaxis. All cases of CMV disease in the prophylaxis group occurred after prophylaxis discontinuation. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of CMV disease in CMV R+ KT recipients, although such benefit should be balanced with the risk of late‐onset disease.     

Cytomegalovirus post kidney transplantation: prophylaxis versus pre‐emptive therapy?

Cytomegalovirus is the most important pathogen causing opportunistic infections in kidney allograft recipients. The occurrence of CMV disease is associated with higher morbidity, higher incidence of other opportunistic infections, allograft loss and death. Therefore, an efficient strategy to prevent CMV disease after kidney transplantation is required. Two options are currently available: pre‐emptive therapy based on regular CMV PCR monitoring and generalized antiviral prophylaxis during a defined period. In this review, we describe those two approaches, highlight the distinct advantages and risks of each strategy and summarize the four randomized controlled trials performed in this field so far. Taken this evidence together, pre‐emptive therapy and anti‐CMV prophylaxis are both equally potent in preventing CMV‐associated complications; however, the pre‐emptive approach may have distinct advantages in allowing for development of long‐term anti‐CMV immunity. We propose a risk‐adapted use of these approaches based on serostatus, immunosuppressive therapy and availability of resources at a particular transplant centre.     

Prophylactic effect of recombinant factor VIIa in factor VII deficient patients

Inherited factor VII (FVII) deficiency is a rare autosomal recessive disorder associated with a bleeding tendency. We describe three patients with congenital FVII deficiency who have been treated with activated recombinant factor VII (rVIIa). Two patients had novel mutations and were treated prophylactically with 1.2 mg rVIIa two to three times a week. Patients 1 and 2 had a severe bleeding tendency. The frequency and severity of bleeding decreased by treatment with rVIIa compared with similar treatment with plasma-derived FVII. The third patient with a moderate bleeding phenotype was treated on demand and showed no change in the frequency of bleeding upon treatment with rVIIa or plasma products. The beneficial effect of rVIIa cannot be explained by the rVIIa half-lives. Pharmacokinetical analysis showed rVIIa activity half-lives of 35, 50 and 54 min for patients 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In conclusion, prophylactic treatment of FVII deficient patients with rVIIa appears to be applicable, safe and successful, although the mechanism of action remains to be elucidated.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of beta-blockers vs endoscopic surveillance in patients with cirrhosis and small varices

AIM:To evaluate the most cost-effectiveness strategy for preventing variceal growth and bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and small esophageal varices.METHODS:A stochastic analysis based on decision trees was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of beta-blockers therapy starting from a diagnosis of small varices(Strategy 1)with that of endoscopic surveillance followed by beta-blockers treatment when large varices are demonstrated(Strategy 2),for preventing variceal growth,bleeding and death in patients with cirrhosis and small esophageal varices.The basic nodes of the tree were gastrointestinal endoscopy,inpatient admission and treatment for bleeding,as required.All estimates were performed using a Monte Carlo microsimulation technique,consisting in simulating observations from known probability distributions depicted in the model.Eight-hundred-thousand simulations were performed to obtain the final estimates.All estimates were then subjected to Monte Carlo Probabilistic sensitivity analysis,to assess the impact of the variability of such estimates on the outcome distributions.RESULTS:The event rate(considered as progression of varices or bleeding or death)in Strategy 1[24.09%(95%CI:14.89%-33.29%)]was significantly lower than in Strategy 2[60.00%(95%CI:48.91%-71.08%)].The mean cost(up to the first event)associated with Strategy 1[823￡(95%CI:106￡-2036￡)]was not significantly different from that of Strategy 2[799￡(95%CI:0￡-3498￡)].The cost-effectiveness ratio with respect to this endpoint was equal to 50.26￡(95%CI:-504.37￡-604.89￡)per event avoided over the four-year follow-up.When bleeding episodes/deaths in subjects whose varices had grown were included,the mean cost associated with Strategy 1 was 1028￡(95%CI:122￡-2581￡),while 1699￡(95%CI:171￡-4674￡)in Strategy 2.CONCLUSION:Beta-blocker therapy turn out to be more effective and less expensive than endoscopic surveillance for primary prophylaxis of bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and small varices.