Randomized controlled trial of oral ganciclovir versus oral acyclovir after induction with intravenous ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease in cytomegalovirus-seropositive liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Without effective antiviral prophylaxis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation. In this randomized, controlled trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of oral ganciclovir with oral acyclovir after induction with intravenous (IV) ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of CMV disease in CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Patients were initially administered IV ganciclovir at a dose of 6 mg/kg per day from day 1 to day 14 after transplantation followed by either oral ganciclovir (1 g every 8 hr) or oral acyclovir (800 mg every 6 hr) from day 15 to day 100 after transplantation. RESULTS: CMV disease occurred in only 1 of 110 patients (0.9%) receiving ganciclovir compared with 8 of 109 patients (7.3%) receiving acyclovir within the first year after transplantation (P =0.019). There was one case of CMV colitis in the ganciclovir group, whereas four cases of CMV syndrome, three cases of CMV pneumonia, and one case of CMV hepatitis developed in the acyclovir group. The only death from CMV disease occurred in an acyclovir-treated patient with CMV pneumonia. Both oral ganciclovir and oral acyclovir were generally well tolerated. Reversible leukopenia (decline in white blood cell count to <3.0 x 10(9)/L) was more common with oral ganciclovir (38/110 patients, 35%) than with oral acyclovir (20/109 patients, 18%) (P =0.009). The emergence of ganciclovir-resistant strains of CMV was not found during the study. CONCLUSIONS: A prophylactic regimen of 2 weeks of IV ganciclovir followed by an additional 12 weeks of oral ganciclovir is superior to a similar regimen of IV ganciclovir followed by oral acyclovir and almost completely eliminates CMV disease after liver transplantation. This superior protection against CMV disease extends up to 1 year after transplantation and is not associated with ganciclovir resistance.     

High-dose acyclovir and intravenous immune globulin reduce the incidence of CMV disease after liver transplantation

We attempted to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in liver transplant (LTx) recipients by means of a combined prophylaxis regimen consisting of high-dose acyclovir (HDA) and immune globulin (IVIG). In 259 consecutive patients, HDA was given for 3 months post-LTx; recipients seronegative for CMV also received IVIG. The previous 94 patients comprised our control group; in this group, low dose acyclovir was given to prevent herpes, and prophylaxis of CMV consisted of IVIG given only to seronegative recipients of seropositive donors. The overall incidence of CMV disease was lower in the HDA group (10.8%) than in the control group (27.6%); (P<0.001). The CMV disease rate associated with primary exposure was 26.3% in the HDA group and 83.3% in the control group (P<0.001). The incidence of CMV disease occurring after acute rejection was 9.5% in HDA patients and 24.6% in controls (P<0.005) The HDA protocol was associated with a trend toward a lower incidence of CMV in patients requiring OKT3 therapy (16.7% vs 29%). High-dose acyclovir/IVIG thus reduces the incidence of CMV disease in seronegative recipients after LTx and lowers the risk of CMV disease associated with therapy for rejection.     

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.     

Late onset cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients: de novo reactivation in recurrent hepatitis C virus hepatitis

Late onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease (occurring more than 1 year post-transplant] was documented in two liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C virus hepatitis in the absence of factors known to precipitate CMV disease, i. e., primary acquisition of CMV, allograft rejection, augmented immunosuppression, concomitant infections, or blood transfusions. Both patients had CMV enteritis (with CMV adrenalitis in one case]; however, other symptoms and signs of overt CMV infection, i. e., fever, leukopenia, or atypical lymphocytes, were lacking. Hepatitis C virus is an immunomodulatory virus; impaired CMV-specific T-cell responses may have accounted for the predisposition of our patients to unprovoked, late onset CMV disease. Given the high incidence of hepatitis C virus recurrence after liver transplantation, awareness of the occurrence and recognition of the unusual presentation of CMV disease in this setting is both clinically relevant and significant, particularly since CMV is treatable if recognized promptly. Received: 25 September 1997 Received after revision: 27 January 1998 Accepted: 2 March 1998     

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.     

The economic impact of cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: We studied the economic impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease and its effective reduction with antiviral prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. METHOD: Analysis of institutional charge data accumulated during a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing oral acyclovir 800 mg four times daily for 120 days (ACV) and intravenous ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 h for 14 days followed by ACV for 106 days (GCV) was performed. RESULTS: Liver transplant recipients who developed CMV disease had significantly higher charges (median: $148,300) than those who developed asymptomatic CMV infection ($119,600) or experienced no CMV infection ($114,100) (P<0.01). A multiple linear regression analysis indicated that CMV disease is associated with a 49% increase in charges, independent of other factors influencing increased hospitalization charges. In CMV-seronegative patients who received a CMV-seropositive donor organ, GCV prophylaxis was associated with a significant reduction in charges, as compared to ACV prophylaxis ($113,900 vs. $153,300, respectively; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: CMV disease is an independent risk factor for increased resource utilization associated with liver transplantation. The use of an effective prophylactic antiviral regimen provides savings in health care resources, particularly in patients at high risk for developing CMV disease.     

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     

Delayed vs initial cytomegalovirus prophylaxis after kidney transplantation

It is recommended to start cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis within 10 days of solid organ transplant, if indicated. Our center underwent a cost-savings initiative to delay CMV prophylaxis initiation from postoperative day zero to postoperative day 7 or upon discharge, hypothesizing this would not affect clinical outcomes but could impact costs. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the effects of early vs delayed (<72 vs >72 hours after transplant) CMV prophylaxis in kidney and kidney/pancreas transplant recipients transplanted between June 2014 and January 2017. The primary endpoint was incidence of CMV infection within 1 year. Secondary endpoints included CMV disease, CMV testing, and valganciclovir cost during index hospitalization. A total of 173 patients (114 early, 59 delayed) were included. CMV infection occurred in 61% vs 54% in the early vs delayed group (P = .5). Excluding low-level DNAemia (QNAT < 200 IU/mL), infection occurred in 30% vs 22% in the early vs late group (P = .4). The median days to starting prophylaxis were 0 and 6 in the early and delayed group (P < .05), which led to a median cost savings of $497.00 per patient during index hospitalization (P < .05). Delaying prophylaxis initiation did not impact CMV outcomes in this cohort and decreased costs.     

The Association of Cytomegalovirus Sero-Pairing with Outcomes and Costs Following Cadaveric Renal Transplantation Prior to the Introduction of Oral Ganciclovir CMV Prophylaxis

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important cause of morbidity, mortality and cost in cadaveric renal transplantation. This study was designed to document the clinical and economic outcomes associated with donor and recipient CMV sero-pairing. Data were drawn from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) on 17 001 cadaveric renal transplant recipients transplanted between 1995 and 1997 with recorded donor and recipient CMV sero-status. In multivariate analysis, CMV-seropositive recipients were associated with a significantly higher incidence of delayed graft function, a lower incidence of graft loss, and lower costs than CMV-seronegative recipients. CMV-seropositive compared to seronegative donors were associated with significantly higher incidence of CMV disease, graft loss, and higher costs when transplanted into CMV-seronegative recipients. However, CMV-seronegative donors into seropositive recipients had no significant association with outcome beyond a higher incidence of CMV disease compared to CMV-seronegative donor and recipient pairs. The outcomes associated with CMV-seropositive donors and seronegative recipients call for tailored management strategies which may include avoidance of such mismatching, antiviral therapy, immunization, or modified immunosuppression.     

Cytomegalovirus infections following renal transplantation – effects of antiviral prophylaxis: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study

Post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections are a source of significant morbidity. However, the extent of the problem and the benefits of various antiviral prophylactic therapies remain incompletely understood. The North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study registry was screened to identify patients hospitalized for CMV infections during the 1st post-renal transplant year between 1987 and 1993. Using a control group of transplant recipients, we performed a retrospective analysis of risk factors for CMV disease among these hospitalized patients and studied the effects of various viral prophylactic strategies on CMV risk, clinical manifestations, and outcome. We identified 142 patients hospitalized with CMV infections, the majority of which included major organ involvement. A CMV-positive kidney donor was the most significant risk factor for hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) = 5.2, P<0.0001] irrespective of recipient age or CMV immune status. As opposed to antiviral agents (acyclovir, ganciclovir) or pooled IgG, prophylaxis with enriched anti-CMV IgG significantly reduced the risk of CMV hospitalization (OR = 0.31, P = 0.03). The prophylactic use of antiviral agents was associated with a decreased risk of major organ involvement during the CMV infection (OR = 0.34, P<0.005). Among the patients with CMV, the 3-year graft survival was significantly better for those who received any form of prophylaxis compared with those who received none (88% vs. 52%, P<0.001). Our findings suggest a role for combined CMV-enriched IgG and antiviral agent prophylaxis for post-transplant CMV disease. Such an approach could diminish the incidence and severity of CMV infection and appears to have an independent favorable effect on graft outcome. Received November 14, 1996; received in revised form March 21, 1997; accepted April 11, 1997     

Efficacy and Safety of Maribavir Dosed at 100 mg Orally Twice Daily for the Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Randomized,Double‐Blind,Multicenter Controlled Trial

Maribavir is an oral benzimidazole riboside with potent in vitro activity against cytomegalovirus (CMV), including some CMV strains resistant to ganciclovir. In a randomized, double‐blind, multicenter trial, the efficacy and safety of prophylactic oral maribavir (100 mg twice daily) for prevention of CMV disease were compared with oral ganciclovir (1000 mg three times daily) in 303 CMV‐seronegative liver transplant recipients with CMV‐seropositive donors (147 maribavir; 156 ganciclovir). Patients received study drug for up to 14 weeks and were monitored for CMV infection by blood surveillance tests and also for the development of CMV disease. The primary endpoint was Endpoint Committee (EC)‐confirmed CMV disease within 6 months of transplantation. In a modified intent‐to‐treat analysis, the noninferiority of maribavir compared to oral ganciclovir for prevention of CMV disease was not established (12% with maribavir vs. 8% with ganciclovir: event rate difference of 0.041; 95% CI: ?0.038, 0.119). Furthermore, significantly fewer ganciclovir patients had EC‐confirmed CMV disease or CMV infection by pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR compared to maribavir patients at both 100 days (20% vs. 60%; p < 0.0001) and at 6 months (53% vs. 72%; p = 0.0053) after transplantation. Graft rejection, patient survival, and non‐CMV infections were similar for maribavir and ganciclovir patients. Maribavir was well‐tolerated and associated with fewer hematological adverse events than oral ganciclovir. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, maribavir is safe but not adequate for prevention of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients at high risk for CMV disease.     

Cytomegalovirus pneumonitis after kidney transplantation is not caused by plugging of cytomegalic endothelial cells only

In addition to life-threatening pneumonia, cytomegalovirus (CMV) may also cause subclinical pulmonary dysfunction after kidney transplantation. To investigate the role of plugging of cytomegalic endothelial cells in the pulmonary capillary bed, we prospectively determined specific carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (KCOc) and its components: the pulmonary diffusing membrane factor (Dm) and pulmonary capillary blood volume (Vcap) before and during CMV infection in 13 kidney transplant recipients and 13 controls. During CMV infection, mean KCOc decreased significantly by 28 % of the initial value (mean KCOc 79 vs 109; P < 0.005 ) due to a decrease in both Vcap and Dm. The KCOc in controls showed a significantly smaller decrease due to a slightly lower Vcap. We conclude that kidney transplant recipients with CMV infection have significant pulmonary diffusion disturbances due to a combination of lower Vcap and lower Dm. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is a local inflammatory process due to CMV and not plugging of cytomegalic endothelial cells only. Received: 25 February 1998 Received after revision: 26 June 1998 Accepted: 22 September 1998     

Cytomegalovirus antigenemia directed pre-emptive prophylaxis with oral versus I.V. ganciclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of pre-emptively administered oral ganciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has not been documented in liver transplant recipients. We sought to compare the efficacy of pre-emptive oral ganciclovir with that of i.v. ganciclovir for the prevention of CMV disease after liver transplantation, and to determine whether withholding prophylaxis in the absence of CMV antigenemia, reliably identified patients in whom no prophylaxis was necessary. METHODS: Surveillance cultures for CMV pp65 antigenemia were performed in all patients at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16. Patients with CMV antigenemia were randomized into two study groups. The experimental group received oral ganciclovir for 6 weeks (2 g t.i.d. for 2 weeks, then 1 g t.i.d. for 4 weeks), and the control group received i.v. ganciclovir (5 mg/kg q 12 hr) for 7 days. RESULTS: Of 72 consecutive liver transplant recipients studied, CMV antigenemia occurred in 31% (22 of 72). Twenty-two patients with asymptomatic antigenemia were randomized to two study groups. CMV disease (viral syndrome) occurred in 9% (1 of 11) of the patients in the i.v. ganciclovir group and in 0% (0 of 11) of the patients in the oral ganciclovir group. None of the study patients developed tissue invasive CMV disease. The median reduction in antigenemia level with oral ganciclovir was 55% at week 1, and 100% at week 2. Overall, 64% of the patients by week 1, 93% by week 2, and 100% by week 4 had antigenemia levels below the baseline after oral ganciclovir. Of 50 patients without CMV antigenemia, none developed CMV disease. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-emptive prophylaxis based on CMV antigenemia can effectively target the patients for CMV prophylaxis; 69% of the patients never received antiviral prophylaxis and did not develop CMV disease. Antiviral therapy instituted upon detection of antigenemia prevented tissue invasive CMV in both ganciclovir groups. Pre-emptively administered oral ganciclovir was effective as prophylaxis for CMV disease after liver transplantation.     

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.     

A new strategy of delayed long-term prophylaxis could prevent cytomegalovirus disease in (D+/R−) solid organ transplant recipients

Abstract:  Long-term prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus (CMV) started immediately after transplantation in (D+/R−) poses a higher risk of late-onset CMV disease. Delayed CMV prophylaxis could allow a transitory exposure of the immune system to CMV, which would let the immune system mount an adequate CMV-specific cytotoxic response in (D+/R−) patients and confer protection against CMV disease. We included all (D+/R−) solid organ transplant recipients (SOT) performed at our institution (January 3/October 6) who received CMV prophylaxis (mainly with oral valganciclovir) during 100 d. In the first period (until December 4), prophylaxis was initiated immediately after transplantation (conventional prophylaxis: CP). Since January 5, it was initiated after 14 d (delayed prophylaxis: DP). Incidence and severity of CMV disease was compared between both groups. A total of 44 SOT recipients were included (CP: 26 and DP: 18). CMV disease was diagnosed in eight patients (18%), seven of 26 (27%) in the CP group, and one of 18 (5.5%) in the DP group (p = 0.07). CMV colitis was reported in five of 26 patients in the CP group (19%), whereas there were no cases of visceral CMV disease in the DP group (p = 0.048). A 14-d delay in the beginning of long-term prophylaxis against CMV in (D+/R−) is safe and could prevent the onset of late-CMV disease.     

Infections in human liver recipients: different patterns early and late after transplantation

The first 49 consecutive patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation between 1984 and 1989 in our department were studied with regard to symptomatic and asymptomatic post-transplantation infections. The major infections carrying a risk of fatal outcome are presented. During the first 4 weeks, fungal and bacterial infections predominated, the percentages of patients affected being 27% and 35%, respectively. Eight patients (17%) suffered from bacterial septicemia, which in six cases was due to gram-negative micro-organisms. The bacterial septicemia was often associated with severe ischemic damage to the graft, rejection, or cholangitis. In addition, a concomitant invasive fungal infection supervened in seven out of eight septic patients, further aggravating the patients' condition. Seventeen of the 49 patients (35%) died after transplantation within 3.3 years. Infection was the cause of death in nine patients (18%), with bacterial septicemia and/or fungemia in eight of these. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease was the dominant cause of illness after the 1st month. While only 5 of the 49 patients developed CMV disease during the 1st month (10%), as many as 16 of the 40 recipients who survived beyond that time suffered from symptomatic CMV viremia (40%). CMV mismatching, i.e., the donation of a CMV-positive organ to a CMV-seronegative recipient, entailed the highest risk for CMV disease. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia occurred within 4 months in 10% of the patients. The four liver recipients affected were among the 20 patients not receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis. None of the 28 patients who received this prophylaxis over a 12-month period developed this complication (P<0.05). The time-related panorama of infectious complications observed in this study has immediate clinical implications for the screening, prophylaxis, and therapy of infections following liver transplantation.     

Pre-emptive therapy of CMVpp65 antigen positive renal transplant recipients with oral ganciclovir: a randomized, comparative study.

BACKGROUND: About one-quarter of renal transplant patients will suffer from symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease if no preventive therapeutic measures are taken. In this prospective, randomized single-centre study pre-emptive therapy with oral ganciclovir is compared with conventional deferred treatment. METHODS: Renal transplant recipients (n= 455) over 18 years of age were screened weekly for CMV pp65 antigenaemia during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation. If CMV pp65 antigen in leukocytes appeared within 8 weeks post-transplantation patients were randomized and included in the study. Five patients developed CMV disease before positive CMV pp65, and 14 patients with a positive antigen test developed CMV disease before randomization could take place, all these representing a limitation of the applicability of the results in the overall renal transplant population. Altogether 179 patients were not randomized for various reasons. Eighty patients completed the study, 42 were randomized to receive pre-emptive oral ganciclovir therapy and 38 to conventional deferred treatment (control group). RESULTS: Time from transplantation to start of ganciclovir capsules was 36 (12-60) days and duration of oral ganciclovir therapy was 49 (27-70) days, median (range). No patient in the pre-emptive treatment group, but nine of 38 patients (23.7%) in the control group, developed CMV disease during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation (P= 0.0009). In the period from 3 months to 1 year post-transplantation, two patients in each group developed CMV disease. There were no significant differences in acute rejection or renal function between treatment groups during the first post-transplant year. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-emptive oral ganciclovir therapy in renal transplant recipients during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation effectively prevents CMV disease during this time period. The incidence of late CMV disease (3 months to 1 year after transplantation) was similar in the two groups, indicating that pre-emptive therapy does not result in late onset of CMV disease.     

Combined Prophylaxis Decreases Incidence of CMV-Associated Pneumonia After Lung Transplantation

Among solid-organ recipients, those with lung transplants are at highest risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection or to die of CMV-associated disease. We evaluated the effect of combined CMV antiviral prophylaxis and CMV-immunoglobulin prophylaxis on CMV-associated pneumonia diagnosed in 303 follow-up transbronchial biopsy (TBB) specimens from lung transplant recipients. At our center, 24 recipients (control group; 1999-2002) received acyclovir for 24 months and 33 recipients (study group; 2003-2008) received combined CMV prophylaxis consisting of CMV immunoglobulin on days 1, 4, 8, 15, and 30 and monthly for 12 months plus gancyclovir or valgancyclovir from postoperative day 21 for 3 weeks followed by acyclovir for up to 24 months. The percentage of pneumonia-positive TBB specimens at 1-month follow-up was similar in the study and control groups: 9.1% (3 of 33 specimens) vs 8.3% (2 of 24) (P = .90). However, after the first month, the percentage of pneumonia-positive TBB specimens was significantly lower in the study group in the first year (months 3, 6, 9, and 12) of follow-up, at 1% (1 of 99) vs 6.4% (5 of 78) (P = .048), and in the first 2 years (months 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24), at 0.8% (1 of 122) vs 6.5% (8 of 124) (P = .02). These data suggest the efficacy of combined prophylaxis to decrease the incidence of CMV-associated pneumonia after the first month in lung transplant recipients. The effect of combined prophylaxis after transplantation seems useful to prevent CMV-associated pneumonia not only in the first year after lung transplantation but also in the second year, which suggests a long-lasting immunologic role of prophylaxis.     

Impact of prophylaxis with cytogam alone on the incidence of CMV viremia in CMV-seropositive lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a serious problem after lung transplantation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of CytoGam, a CMV hyperimmune globulin (CMV-IGIV), as CMV prophylaxis after lung transplantation. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, open-label study compared prophylaxis with CMV-IGIV and no prophylaxis in 44 CMV-seropositive lung transplant recipients. The primary end-point was development of CMV viremia during the first year after transplantation. RESULTS: Cytomegalovirus viremia was detected in 13 of 22 recipients without prophylaxis and in 16 of 22 recipients with CMV-IGIV prophylaxis (p = 0.19). Cytomegalovirus pneumonitis developed in 8 controls vs in 11 CMV-IGIV recipients (p = 0.54). We found no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of positive shell vial assays (6.8% +/- 6.5% without vs 11.2% +/- 10.1% with prophylaxis, p = 0.09) or in the attack rate of CMV pneumonitis (0.41 +/- 0.59 episodes/patient without vs 0.86 +/- 0.99 episodes/patient with prophylaxis, p = 0.07). Similarly, no difference was apparent in the time to onset of CMV viremia, to detection of CMV DNA in peripheral blood leukocytes by polymerase chain reaction, or to development of CMV pneumonitis. The incidence of acute rejection and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome and the survival rate during the first post-transplant year did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with CMV-IGIV alone did not decrease CMV viremia or pneumonitis, did not decrease the incidence of acute rejection or bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, and did not affect 1-year survival of CMV-seropositive lung transplant recipients at our center.     

Failure of acyclovir to prevent cytomegalovirus infection in renal allograft recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common opportunistic pathogen following renal transplantation and remains a major concern in transplantation centers owing to its high morbidity and impact on renal allografts. Pending more effective antiviral drugs, efforts have been directed toward prevention strategies. We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the efficacy of various prophylactic options used at our institution during the period April 1986 to August 1990. All CMV-negative patients with CMV-negative kidneys (D-R-) received screened, CMV-negative blood products (n=19). CMV-specific immunoglobulins (CMV Ig) were used in 6 patients at increased risk for primary CMV infection and acyclovir was administered to 21 patients at an initial intravenous dose of 5 mg/kg body weight; then oral doses of 800–3200 mg per day were given according to the patients' estimated creatinine clearance. Thirty-two patients did not receive any CMV prophylactic treatment and served as controls. CMV monitoring of the patients during the first 6 months after transplantation showed an overall infection and disease rate of 81% and 38.1%, respectively, in the acyclovir-treated group. Compared with controls, the incidences of infection and disease were higher in the acyclovir-treated patients, with a significant difference for CMV infection (P=0.002, generalized Wilcoxon test). Only 1 of the 19 D-R-patients presented with CMV infection. CMV Ig-treated patients tended to have less severe disease without any apparent reduction in infection incidence. Given the high rate of infection in patients at risk, we infer that high-dose acyclovir does not prevent CMV infection in our setting of renal transplantation. We advocate the use of screened, CMV-negative blood products in D-R-patients.Part of this study has already been published as a letter to the editor in the Annals of Internal Medicine