Following Universal Prophylaxis with Intravenous Ganciclovir and Cytomegalovirus Immune Globulin, Valganciclovir is Safe and Effective for Prevention of CMV Infection Following Lung Transplantation

We prospectively determined the safety and efficacy of valganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in at-risk (donor positive/recipient negative [D+/R-] or R+) lung transplant recipients. We also determined the length of prophylaxis required to significantly decrease both CMV infection and disease. Consecutive lung transplant recipients surviving >30 days (n = 90) received combination prophylaxis with intravenous (i.v.) ganciclovir (GCV) 5 mg/kg/day and cytomegalovirus immune globulin (CMV-IVIG) followed by valganciclovir (450 mg twice-daily) to complete 180, 270 or 365 days of prophylaxis. This group was compared to a historical group (n = 140) who received high-dose oral acyclovir following i.v. GCV and CMV-IVIG. CMV disease was significantly lower in patients receiving valganciclovir compared to acyclovir (2.2% vs. 20%; p < 0.0001). Freedom from CMV infection and disease was significantly greater (p < 0.02) in patients receiving 180, 270 or 365 days of prophylaxis (90%, 95% and 90%, respectively) compared to those receiving 100-179 days (64%) or < 100 days (59%). No patient receiving valganciclovir died during the study. Following prophylaxis with i.v. GCV and CMV-IVIG, valganciclovir is safe and effective for prevention of CMV infection and disease in at-risk lung transplant recipients. The required length of prophylaxis was at least 180 days.     

A randomized prospective trial of oral versus intravenous ganciclovir for prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in high-risk kidney recipients

PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of oral versus intravenous ganciclovir in high-risk kidney recipients. METHODS: Thirty-four, cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositive recipients of kidneys from seropositive donors who had undergone antilymphocytic immunosuppressive therapy were assigned randomly to oral (1000 mg, three times a day, 12 weeks) versus intravenous (5 mg/kg, 2 weeks) ganciclovir prophylaxis. Follow-up was performed for 12 months. The patients were evaluated for clinical and laboratory outcomes regarding CMV serostatus, CMV disease, graft outcome, and ganciclovir side effects. RESULTS: Sixteen patients in the oral group and 14 in the intravenous group completed the study. CMV infection occurred in 6 (37.5%) and 5 (35.7%) cases in the oral and intravenous groups, respectively (P = NS). The mean interval between prophylaxis initiation and the first positive CMV Ag result was 3 +/- 2.19 months, with no significant difference between the two groups. Only two patients in the intravenous group experienced CMV diseases, which were not tissue-invasive. Acute rejection episodes were observed in nine out of 30 recipients, but it did not show any association with the prophylaxis regimen or CMV serostatus. The patients tolerated oral ganciclovir well; the compliance percent was 81.6%. No complication was reported. CONCLUSION: Oral and intravenous ganciclovir showed no significant difference to reduce the rate of CMV infection among high-risk kidney recipients. Oral ganciclovir was also effective and safe for the prevention of CMV disease. Moreover, it seems that CMV infection was not associated with acute rejection episodes.     

Intravenous ganciclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in heart, heart-lung, and lung transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has had a significant clinical impact on the heart, heart-lung and lung transplant recipients in our centre. CMV disease has been so severe with CMV antibody-negative heart-lung transplant patients receiving organs from CMV antibody-positive donors (CMV-mismatched patients) that in 1986 we adopted the policy of not transplanting CMV-positive organs into CMV-negative heart-lung or lung recipients. In December 1992, we instituted a policy of providing intravenous ganciclovir (5 mg/kg twice a day for 28 days) during the immediate postoperative period for CMV-mismatched heart recipients and CMV antibody-positive heart-lung and lung patients, who have been the patients at greatest risk of severe CMV disease in our centre. A placebo group was not employed because of ethical considerations, ganciclovir having been shown to be effective for the treatment of CMV infections among transplant patients. Compared with a historical control group of patients receiving no prophylaxis, prophylactic ganciclovir reduced the incidence of CMV infection (39 % vs 91 %, P = 0.0006) and CMV disease (17 % vs 74 %, P = 0.0004) among CMV antibody-positive heart-lung recipients. Prophylactic ganciclovir did not significantly reduce the incidence of CMV infection or disease among heart or isolated lung recipients. Ganciclovir was well tolerated, with few adverse reactions. In the case of heart-lung transplant patients, one month of intravenous prophylactic ganciclovir significantly reduced the incidence of both CMV infection and disease when compared with patients who received no prophylaxis. With the lung transplant and heart transplant patients, there were no significant differences between the prophylaxis and nonprophylaxis groups, although there was a consistent trend towards less infection and disease in the prophylaxis groups. Received: 14 April 1998 Received after revision: 24 September 1998 Accepted: 18 December 1998     

Acyclovir plus CMV immunoglobulin prophylaxis and early therapy with ganciclovir are effective and safe in CMV high-risk renal transplant pediatric recipients

Abstract Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is still a major cause of morbidity in high-risk renal transplant recipients. In the present report, we have reviewed our records of renal transplant pediatric recipients (RTPR; mean age 14.1 ± 4.9 years) since 1991, when we started a policy of CMV prophylaxis constituting high-dose oral acyclovir plus CMV hyperimmune immunoglobulins (Hlg) followed by early i.v. ganciclovir therapy in high-risk patients (i.e., CMV donor +/ recipient -). Four patients received a kidney from a living relative (LR), 2 patients had one previous transplant, and 1 had a combined liver -kidney transplant. Thirty-three patients who were negative for CMV antibodies (ab) before transplantation received a kidney from CMV ab positive donors. The immunosuppressive regimen included cyclosporin A and steroids, with the addition of azathioprine in the 4 patients who received an LR kidney. Serial assessments for CMV antigenemia (pp 65) were routinely performed for 6 months after transplantation to define CMV infection. Among the 33 CMV seronegative recipients (R -) who received the graft from a CMV seropositive donor (D +), 18 (54.5 %) experienced CMV infection, whereas among the 28 CMV R +, who received a graft from a CMV D +, 11 (39.3 %) experienced CMV infection. With regard to CMV - related symptoms, only 2 patients suffered from a CMV syndrome (fever and leukopenia in 1 patient, fever and arthralgia in the other). In no case did the spectrum of CMV disease occur; only minor symptoms were present in 7 of the remaining CMV-infected patients (fever in 6 and leukopenia in 1). Rejection episodes and renal function did not differ between CMV-infected and non-CMV-infected patients. Our experiences support the use of prophylactic acyclovir plus CMV HIg followed by early therapy with i.v. ganciclovir to combat the risk of increased morbidity in high risk RTPR.     

Acyclovir plus CMV immunoglobulin prophylaxis and early therapy with ganciclovir are effective and safe in CMV high-risk renal transplant pediatric recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is still a major cause of morbidity in high-risk renal transplant recipients. In the present report, we have reviewed our records of renal transplant pediatric recipients (RTPR; mean age 14.1 ± 4.9 years) since 1991, when we started a policy of CMV prophylaxis constituting high-dose oral acyclovir plus CMV hyperimmune immunoglobulins (Hlg) followed by early i. v. ganciclovir therapy in high-risk patients (i. e., CMV donor + / recipient ?). Four patients received a kidney from a living relative (LR), 2 patients had one previous transplant, and 1 had a combined liver – kidney transplant. Thirty-three patients who were negative for CMV antibodies (ab) before transplantation received a kidney from CMV ab positive donors. The immunosuppressive regimen included cyclosporine A and steroids, with the addition of azathioprine in the 4 patients who received an LR kidney. Serial assessments for CMV antigenemia (pp 65) were routinely performed for 6 months after transplantation to define CMV infection. Among the 33 CMV seronegative recipients (R ?) who received the graft from a CMV seropositive donor (D +), 18 (54.5 %) experienced CMV infection, whereas among the 28 CMV R +, who received a graft from a CMV D +, 11 (39.3 %) experienced CMV infection. With regard to CMV ? related symptoms, only 2 patients suffered from a CMV syndrome (fever and leukopenia in 1 patient, fever and arthralgia in the other). In no case did the spectrum of CMV disease occur; only minor symptoms were present in 7 of the remaining CMV-infected patients (fever in 6 and leukopenia in 1). Rejection episodes and renal function did not differ between CMV-infected and non-CMV-infected patients. Our experiences support the use of prophylactic acyclovir plus CMV HIg followed by early therapy with i. v. ganciclovir to combat the risk of increased morbidity in high risk RTPR.     

Combined CMV prophylaxis improves outcome and reduces the risk for bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) after lung transplantation

BACKGROUND: The benefit of cytomegalovirus (CMV) hyperimmune globuline in preventing CMV infection after lung transplantation still remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of combined prophylaxis using ganciclovir (GAN) and CMV hyperimmune globulin (CMV-IG) on CMV infection, CMV disease, survival and its role in preventing Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). METHODS: A consecutive series of 68 CMV high-risk lung transplant recipients (D+/R-, D+/R+), who had a minimum follow-up of 1 year posttransplant were analyzed. Thirty patients (44.1%) received single GAN prophylaxis for 3 months (control group) and 38 recipients (55.9%) received GAN together with CMV-IG 7 times during the first postoperative month (study group). Median follow-up was 16.5 months in the control and 23.8 months in the study group (P = 0.54). RESULTS: Five CMV-related deaths (16.7%) occurred in the control group (P = 0.014). Fifteen recipients suffered from CMV pneumonitis and three patients had CMV syndrome. In the control group, 13 recipients (43.3%) suffered from clinically manifested CMV disease compared to 5 (13.2%) in the study group (P = 0.007). Additionally, recipient survival was significantly better in the study group (P = 0.01). One year freedom from CMV affection was 52.1% in the control and 71.5% in the study group (P = 0.027). Three-year freedom from BOS was significantly higher in the study group (54.3% vs. 82%, P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In CMV high risk patients, additional CMV-IG administration seems to be effective to reduce CMV-related morbidity and to avoid CMV-related mortality. Reduced incidence of BOS may result from improved CMV prevention, although randomized trials are warranted.     

Prospective randomized trial to assess the value of preemptive oral therapy for CMV infection following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: With the development of sensitive tests to detect cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia, preemptive approaches become a reasonable alternative to general CMV prophylaxis. We performed a randomized trial comparing pp65-antigenemia guided preemptive therapy using oral ganciclovir with symptom-triggered intravenous ganciclovir treatment. METHODS: Eighty-eight of 372 liver transplant recipients developed antigenemia early after orthotopic liver transplantation. Twenty-eight symptomatic patients with antigenemia were excluded from randomization and treated with intravenous ganciclovir. Sixty pp65-antigen-positive asymptomatic patients were randomized to receive either oral ganciclovir 3x1 g/day for 14 days (group 1) or no preemptive treatment (group 2). Patients that developed CMV disease were treated with intravenous ganciclovir 2x5 mg/kg body weight for 14 days. The high-risk (Donor+/Recipient-) patients were equally distributed in the two study groups. RESULTS: Three of 30 (10%) patients on oral ganciclovir developed mild to moderate CMV disease compared with 6/30 (20%) patients in the control group. In the Donor+/Recipient- patients, the incidence of CMV disease was 1/6 and 3/7. All disease episodes resolved after intravenous treatment. The 1- and 3-year patient and organ survival was the same in the study groups and in the patients with or without CMV infection. No deaths related to CMV occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value of pp65-antigenemia for the development of CMV disease was very low, and, in 28/88 patients (32%), antigenemia did not precede symptoms. Therefore, pp65-antigenemia is of limited value in deciding on the timing and need for ganciclovir therapy after liver transplantation.     

Efficacy and Safety of Valganciclovir vs. Oral Ganciclovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

We compared the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir with those of oral ganciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients of organs from seropositive donors (D+/R-). In this randomised, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy study, 364 CMV D+/R- patients received valganciclovir 900 mg once daily or oral ganciclovir 1000 mg three times a day (tid) within 10 days of transplant and continued through 100 days. CMV disease, plasma viremia, acute graft rejection, graft loss and safety were analyzed up to 6 and 12 months post-transplant. Endpoint committee-defined CMV disease developed in 12.1% and 15.2% of valganciclovir and ganciclovir patients, respectively, by 6 months, though with a difference in the relative efficacy of valganciclovir and ganciclovir between organs (i.e. an organ type-treatment interaction). By 12 months, respective incidences were 17.2% and 18.4%, and the incidence of investigator-treated CMV disease events was comparable in the valganciclovir (30.5%) and ganciclovir (28.0%) arms. CMV viremia during prophylaxis was significantly lower with valganciclovir (2.9% vs. 10.4%; p=0.001), but was comparable by 12 months (48.5% valganciclovir vs 48.8% ganciclovir). Time-to-onset of CMV disease and to viremia were delayed with valganciclovir; rates of acute allograft rejection were generally lower with valganciclovir. Except for a higher incidence of neutropenia with valganciclovir (8.2%, vs 3.2% ganciclovir) the safety profile was similar for both drugs. Overall, once-daily oral valganciclovir was as clinically effective and well-tolerated as oral ganciclovir tid for CMV prevention in high-risk SOT recipients.     

A Trial of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Prevention in Lung Transplant Recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common after lung transplantation. We performed a prospective trial of valganciclovir prophylaxis in lung recipients with outcomes compared to matched historical controls. The valganciclovir group (n = 40) (including D+/R- and R+ patients) was prospectively enrolled, and received oral valganciclovir 900 mg once daily for 12 weeks. Historical controls (n = 40) received 12 weeks of daily intravenous ganciclovir if D+/R- or 12 weeks of oral ganciclovir if R+. CMV viral load testing was done at two-week intervals until 6 months posttransplant. Baseline demographics and immunosuppression were comparable in the two groups. The incidence of CMV viremia was 16/40 (40.0%) in the valganciclovir arm versus 18/40 (45%) in the ganciclovir arm (p = NS). The incidence of symptomatic CMV disease was 8/40 (20%) versus 7/40 (17.5%), respectively (p = NS). In both groups viremia, while on prophylaxis, was uncommon (valganciclovir: 0/40 and ganciclovir: 2/40). Peak viral load and time to viremia were similar in the two arms. High rates of viremia and symptomatic disease occurred in the D+/R- patients after discontinuation of prophylaxis. Genotypic CMV sequence analysis demonstrated low rates of ganciclovir resistance in both groups. Valganciclovir prophylaxis had similar efficacy to either intravenous ganciclovir (D+/R- patients), or oral ganciclovir (R+ patients) in lung recipients.     

Comparison of combined prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin plus ganciclovir versus cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin alone in high-risk heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Seronegative heart transplant recipients who receive an allograft from seropositive donors have a higher risk of developing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and dysfunction. Neither CMV-specific hyperimmune globulin nor ganciclovir as sole CMV prophylaxis is sufficient to prevent CMV disease in high-risk patients. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of CMV-hyperimmune globulin with and without ganciclovir in 207 D+/R- heart transplant recipients. METHODS: The study population was divided into two groups: Group A was composed of 96 patients who received CMV hyperimmune globulin as sole CMV prophylaxis, and group B was composed of 111 patients who received combined CMV prophylaxis. All recipients were subjected to quadruple cytolytic immunosuppression. Primary and secondary end points included prevention of CMV-associated death, CMV disease and productive infection, CAV, and overall infection. RESULTS: There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups. Four patients in the group A died of CMV sepsis, whereas no CMV-associated death was observed in group B (P =0.0326). The actuarial incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower in patients who received double CMV prophylaxis (32.29 vs. 11.71, P =0.0003). Although no difference was observed with regard to productive CMV infection (53.12 vs. 65.77, P =not significant), CAV and overall infection rates were significantly higher in the first group (7.29 vs. 0.9, P =0.0157 and 70.83 vs. 62.16, P =0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Double CMV prophylaxis consisting of CMV hyperimmune globulin and ganciclovir is able to abolish CMV death and prevent CMV disease in high-risk heart transplant recipients. Therefore, the use of a combination regimen is recommended for seronegative recipients with seropositive donors.     

Randomized controlled trial of sequential intravenous and oral ganciclovir versus prolonged intravenous ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk cytomegalovirus-seronegative liver transplant recipients with cytomegalovirus-seropositive donors

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative liver transplant recipients with CMV-seropositive donors have the greatest risk for CMV disease. We performed a randomized, controlled trial comparing sequential intravenous (IV) and oral ganciclovir with prolonged IV ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of CMV disease in these high-risk patients. Patients were initially given IV ganciclovir at a dose of 6 mg/kg per day from days 1 to 14 after transplantation. Patients then either received oral ganciclovir (1 g every 8 hr) or continued IV ganciclovir (6 mg/kg once per day on Monday-Friday of each week) from days 15 to 100 after transplantation. CMV disease occurred in 3 of 32 patients (9.3%) receiving oral ganciclovir and in 4 of 32 patients (12.5%) receiving IV ganciclovir within the first year after transplantation (P>0.2). All cases of CMV disease occurred more than 90 days after transplantation (median time of onset day +137 for oral ganciclovir and day +135 for IV ganciclovir). There were no deaths from CMV in either study group. Both oral and IV ganciclovir were generally well tolerated. These results indicate that, after induction with 14 days of IV ganciclovir, oral ganciclovir can be as effective as IV ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of CMV disease in high-risk CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with CMV-seropositive donors and eliminates the need for prolonged IV access.     

Long-term oral ganciclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in cytomegalovirus high-risk renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Although specific therapy is available with ganciclovir, cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease remains a major problem after renal transplantation especially in CMV seronegative recipients of organs of seropositive donors (D+R-). METHODS: In an open-labeled prospective controlled trial we evaluated the effect of long-term oral ganciclovir prophylaxis (3 g/day for 3 months posttransplantation) in a cohort of 31 CMV-high risk (D+R-) renal transplant recipients (GC) compared with a cohort of 28 high-risk patients with targeted CMV prophylaxis (CO) receiving i.v. ganciclovir during antirejection therapy. Primary end-points were CMV infection, diagnosed by pp65 antigenemia assay or serologic method, and CMV disease. Additionally severity of CMV disease quantified by a scoring system was evaluated. RESULTS: CMV prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of CMV infection (CO: 75%, GC: 45%; P<.05) and CMV disease (CO: 60%, GC: 29%; P<.05) without relevant side effects and without any clinical suspicion of ganciclovir resistance. Severity of CMV disease as quantified by a scoring system was reduced from 8.3+/-6.7 points in controls to 3.3+/-2.6 points in ganciclovir-treated patients (P<.05). Mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (CO: n=3, GC: n=1; NS). However, there was one lethal CMV disease and a second death possibly attributable to CMV disease in the control group, whereas in ganciclovir-treated patients there was no CMV-associated fatal outcome. CONCLUSION: Long-term oral ganciclovir prophylaxis is effective and safe in CMV high-risk renal transplant recipients.     

Successful prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease after primary CMV exposure in liver transplant recipients.

During a 38-month period, we studied 320 liver transplants in 283 recipients (202 adults, 81 children). CMV disease was documented in 85 patients (30.0%) The major risk factor for CMV disease was primary CMV exposure (transplanting a seropositive allograft into a seronegative recipient). A total of 42 patients (14.8%) had primary CMV exposure. Twenty-one patients were historical controls, while the next 21 received prophylaxis for CMV infection in a nonrandomized trial of consecutive study groups. The regimen of prophylaxis consisted of intravenous immune globulin (IgG; 0.5 g/kg) at weekly intervals for 6 weeks and acyclovir for 3 months. CMV prophylaxis resulted in a dramatic reduction in the incidence of CMV disease (71.4% vs. 23.8%, (P less than 0.01). All cases of CMV were treated with intravenous ganciclovir (5 mg/kg b.i.d. for 14 days), with 5 patients in the control group developing recurrent CMV disease (33.3% relapse). In the 16 patients receiving prophylaxis who did not develop CMV disease, all developed positive CMV-IgG titers with the passive administration of IgG. However, none developed any evidence of CMV infection or viral shedding as assessed by IgM titers and surveillance viral cultures. Four deaths occurred (all control patients), but none were related to CMV disease. Overall patient and graft survivals after primary CMV exposure were 90.5% and 82.2%, respectively, after a mean follow-up of 14 months. Conclusion: Primary CMV exposure is a major risk factor for CMV disease in liver transplant recipients. Intravenous IgG plus acyclovir is safe and effective in preventing CMV infection and disease in this setting. Because of the scarcity of donor organs, we do not advocate protective matching to avoid primary CMV exposure but rather recommend prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in this high-risk group.     

Does valganciclovir hydrochloride (valcyte) provide effective prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients?

INTRODUCTION: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after solid organ transplantation is one of the most common viral infections, causing significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly. Ganciclovir has proven to be effective for the prophylaxis and treatment of CMV. However, oral absorption of ganciclovir is poor. Recently, oral administration of valganciclovir hydrochloride (Valcyte) has been observed to display 10-fold better absorption than oral ganciclovir. Valganciclovir has increasingly been used as prophylaxis against CMV after solid organ transplantation. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of valganciclovir prophylaxis therapy after primary liver transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2001 and May 2003, 203 consecutive liver transplant recipients, including 129 men and 74 women of overall mean age 53 +/- 11 years, received valganciclovir (900 mg/d or 450 mg every other day depending on renal function) for 3 to 6 months after primary liver transplantation. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Mean follow-up was 19 +/- 5.8 months. CMV DNA in peripheral blood was tested using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. Symptomatic CMV was stratified according to the CMV immunoglobulin (Ig)G status of the donor and recipient at the time of liver transplantation. Donors and recipients were classified preoperatively into groups according to the presence or absence of CMV as follows: group 1 (n = 73; donor CMV+, recipient CMV+); group 2 (n = 41; donor CMV-, recipient CMV+); group 3 (n = 54; donor CMV+, recipient CMV-; high-risk group); and group 4 (n = 35; donor CMV-, recipient CMV-). RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (14.3%) developed symptomatic CMV disease at 169 +/- 117 days after liver transplantation: group 1, 16.4% versus group 2, 7.3% versus group 3, 25.9% versus group 4, 0%. Of these patients, 5 also had invasive CMV on liver biopsy, which was performed owing to abnormal liver functions. All 29 patients were treated with intravenous ganciclovir. One patient died owing to disseminated CMV, whereas the remaining 28 patients responded to treatment. Interestingly, 8 patients, including 1 who had invasive CMV hepatitis, developed symptomatic CMV within 90 days of liver transplantation even while on prophylactic valganciclovir. CONCLUSION: Valganciclovir failed to provide adequate prophylaxis following liver transplantation in our patients. The overall rate of CMV in seropositive donors and/or recipients was 17%, and in the high-risk group was 26%. Further prospective studies with measurement of ganciclovir concentrations are needed to elucidate the reasons for this unexpected failure.     

Retrospective review of the incidence of cytomegalovirus infection and disease after liver transplantation in pediatric patients: comparison of prophylactic oral ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common viral infection after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Safe and effective prophylactic regimens that decrease its incidence after SOT are essential for long-term graft survival. Although valganciclovir is not Food and Drug Administration-approved for CMV prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients, postmarketing studies have shown valganciclovir to be as effective as ganciclovir in high-risk adult patients undergoing SOT. Currently, data are lacking for pediatric liver transplantation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir and ganciclovir for CMV infection prophylaxis in pediatric liver transplant recipients. This was a retrospective study of 56 pediatric liver transplant recipients who were prescribed either oral ganciclovir (n = 37) or valganciclovir (n = 19). Patients were followed until 200 days after transplantation or death. The primary outcome measure compared the rates of early-onset CMV infection and CMV disease in the 2 medication groups. Secondary outcome measures identified patient-specific factors that contributed to CMV acquisition and the incidence of late-onset CMV infection or disease. The rates of adverse drug effects and discontinuation were also evaluated. Early-onset CMV disease was documented in 0% of valganciclovir patients and in 5.4% of ganciclovir patients (P = 0.54). There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes. An increased incidence of late-onset CMV disease was seen in the valganciclovir group versus the ganciclovir group (22.2% versus 8.1%, P = 0.23). No differences in adverse events were reported. In conclusion, no statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of CMV infection or disease between patients receiving oral valganciclovir and patients receiving oral ganciclovir.     

Comparative study of prophylactic oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir in high-risk kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major pathogen in renal transplant patients causing significant post-transplant morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic antiviral therapy, currently implemented in most kidney transplant centres, has significantly reduced the incidence of CMV infection after transplantation. Oral ganciclovir has been shown to be an effective prophylactic agent in preventing CMV disease and infection with a demonstrated superior efficacy over oral acyclovir. Valacyclovir, a prodrug of acyclovir with a higher level of bioavailability than acyclovir, has also been shown to be effective in preventing CMV disease when given as prophylactic treatment. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 150 renal transplant recipients in our centre, we compared the efficacy of oral ganciclovir with valacyclovir in preventing CMV infection. Seventy-seven consecutive renal transplant recipients prophylactically treated with oral ganciclovir for 12 weeks after transplant were compared with 73 consecutive recipients treated with oral valacylovir for an equal length of time. RESULTS: No difference was noted in the incidence of CMV infection between the two treatment groups (5.1 vs 5.4%) after a 6 month follow-up. Likewise, the incidence of acute rejection was similar in both groups (11.6 vs 6.8%). All cases of CMV infection occurred in high-risk patients (donor positive/recipient negative). CONCLUSION: The prophylactic use of oral valacylovir is as effective as oral ganciclovir in reducing CMV infection and disease after kidney transplantation.     

Efficacy and safety of low-dose valganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in adult liver transplant recipients.

The efficacy and safety of valganciclovir (VGCV) for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients has not been established. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral VGCV (450 mg once daily for 90 days) and standard oral ganciclovir (1 g three times a day for 90 days, GCV) in preventing CMV disease in 109 adult liver transplant recipients who survived at least 1 month between January 2001 and April 2003 (49 GCV and 60 VGCV). The incidence of CMV disease at 1 year post-transplant was similar among patients treated with VGCV and GCV (3% and 4%, respectively). Three of the four CMV disease cases occurred in high-risk recipients with CMV serotype of donor+/recipient- (D+/R-) and all cases presented after completion of CMV prophylaxis, ranging 114-152 days post-transplant. Severe neutropenia was rare, and thrombocytopenia and anemia occurred at similar frequencies with both prophylaxis regimens. In conclusion, a 90-day regimen of low-dose oral VGCV has a similar efficacy and safety profile to high-dose oral GCV in adult liver transplant recipients. D+/R- liver transplant recipients remain at risk of developing CMV disease after completion of antiviral prophylaxis. Additional prospective studies with close monitoring for CMV viremia and drug resistance are needed to further establish the optimal dose and duration of VGCV in liver transplant recipients.     

Ganciclovir prophylaxis delays but does not prevent cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is associated with reduced graft and patient survival among renal transplant recipients. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of routine prophylaxis with 12 weeks of oral ganciclovir on the incidence of CMV infection in a center that predominantly uses antibody induction together with tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil-based maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. The control group consisted of a historical patient cohort transplanted immediately prior to the use of oral ganciclovir prophylaxis. The use of tacrolimus (88% vs 77%, P=.02) and cytolytic therapy (81% vs 46%, P <.0001) was likewise greater among patients who received ganciclovir prophylaxis. CMV infection occurred in 20 (9%) patients in the ganciclovir era and 4 (3%) patients in the preganciclovir era (P=.003). The mean time to CMV infection was longer in patients who received ganciclovir prophylaxis than in patients in the preganciclovir era (23.4 +/- 10.9 weeks vs 9.8 +/- 5.6 weeks, P=.03). We conclude that 12 weeks of ganciclovir prophylaxis delays but does not prevent CMV infection from occurring in renal transplant recipients. These results suggest that with the use of 12 weeks of ganciclovir prophylaxis, vigilance for CMV infection is needed well beyond 24 weeks posttransplant.     

Acute rejection and cardiac allograft vascular disease is reduced by suppression of subclinical cytomegalovirus infection

BACKGROUND: Anticytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis prevents the acute disease but its impact on subclinical infection and allograft outcome is unknown. We sought to determine whether CMV prophylaxis administered for three months after heart transplant would improve patient outcomes. METHODS: This prospective cohort study of 66 heart transplant recipients compared aggressive CMV prophylaxis (n = 21, CMV hyperimmune globulin [CMVIG] plus four weeks of intravenous ganciclovir followed by two months of valganciclovir); with standard prophylaxis (n = 45, intravenous ganciclovir for four weeks). Prophylaxis was based on pretransplant donor (D) and recipient (R) CMV serology: R-/D+ received aggressive prophylaxis; R+ received standard prophylaxis. Outcome measures were: CMV infection assessed by DNA-polymerase chain reaction on peripheral blood polymorphonuclear leukocytes, acute rejection, and cardiac allograft vascular disease (CAV) assessed by intravascular ultrasound. All patients completed one year of follow-up. RESULTS.: CMV infection was subclinical in all but four patients (two in each group). Aggressively treated patients had a lower incidence of CMV infection (73 +/- 10% vs. 94 +/- 4%; P = 0.038), and an independent reduced relative risk for acute rejection graded > or =3A (relative risk [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.26-0.96]; P = 0.03), as compared with the standard prophylaxis group. Aggressively prophylaxed patients also showed a slower progression of CAV, in terms of coronary artery lumen loss (lumen volume change=-21 +/- 13% vs. -10+/-14%; P = 0.05); and vessel shrinkage (vessel volume change = -15 +/- 11% vs. -3 +/- 18%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged (val)ganciclovir plus CMVIG reduces viral levels, acute rejection, and allograft vascular disease, suggesting a role for chronic subclinical infection in the pathophysiology of the most common diseases affecting heart transplant recipients.     

Failure of ganciclovir prophylaxis to completely eradicate CMV disease in renal transplant recipients treated with intense anti-rejection immunotherapy

Ganciclovir prophylactic regimens have been shown to be effective in renal transplant recipients at risk for primary (donor seropositive/recipient seronegative) and secondary (recipient seropositive) cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. However, in addition to serologic factors, the type and intensity of the administered immunosuppression is a strong risk factor for CMV disease. Since January 1995, we have utilized a potent immunosuppressive protocol selectively in recipients at high risk for immunologic graft loss, defined as retransplant recipients, recipients with delayed graft function, non-Caucasian recipients, and recipients suffering from acute rejection. Between January 1995 and December 1996, 110 consecutive renal transplants were performed in recipients who were either CMV seropositive or received an allograft from a CMV-seropositive donor. All recipients received ganciclovir prophylactic therapy for 3 months post-transplant. Group I (N = 43) consisted of recipients at high-immunologic risk for graft loss as defined above. These recipients were treated with an intense anti-rejection immunotherapeutic regimen consisting of Cellcept, Neoral, and prednisone, with the frequent addition of antilymphocyte antibody therapies and intravenous methylprednisolone. The remaining 67 recipients (group II) were treated with a less intense immunotherapeutic regimen consisting of azathioprine, Neoral, and prednisone. The incidence and severity of CMV disease and the patient and allograft survival were compared. The incidence of CMV syndrome was greater in group I (28%) compared with group II (7%), and was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The 1-yr patient and graft survival were similar, 95 and 91%, respectively, for group I compared with 97 and 97%, respectively, for group II. These data suggest that 3 months of ganciclovir prophylactic therapy is significantly less effective for the prevention of CMV disease in renal transplant recipients at high risk for acute rejection treated with an intense immunotherapeutic regimen. These data suggest that more effective prevention of CMV disease in these high-risk recipients will require the addition of other anti-viral agents, such as immunoglobulin preparation to the prophylactic regimen.