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.     

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with valganciclovir in kidney, pancreas-kidney, and pancreas transplantation

Cytomegalovirus, seen in more than 50% of solid organ transplant recipients, is responsible for numerous direct and indirect consequences, including infection with opportunistic pathogens and allograft rejection. Prophylaxis with intravenous ganciclovir has been the gold standard for prevention; however, intravenous treatment is expensive and carries risks of its own. Oral ganciclovir, to be effective, must be given in large, divided doses. Valganciclovir, the valine ester of ganciclovir, at 900 mg/day, provides oral bioavailability equivalent to that of intravenous ganciclovir and superior to that of oral ganciclovir. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of 3 months prophylaxis with valganciclovir in kidney, simultaneous pancreas-kidney, and pancreas transplantation. Of 161 patients, all of whom received potent immunosuppressive regimens and were followed for a mean of 440 days, only one developed cytomegalovirus infection, at 120 days post-transplantation. Two patients died, and two others lost their grafts. There were seven incidents of acute rejection. Only seven patients discontinued treatment early, five because of leukopenia. These results suggest that prophylaxis with 900 mg/day of valganciclovir for at least 3 months safely and effectively prevents cytomegalovirus infection in kidney, simultaneous pancreas-kidney and pancreas transplant recipients on highly potent immunosuppression.     

Long-Term Outcomes of CMV Disease Treatment with Valganciclovir Versus IV Ganciclovir in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Though an important cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplantation (SOT), the long-term outcomes of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease treatment have not been well studied. In a randomized trial, 321 SOT recipients with CMV disease were followed 1 year after treatment with either twice daily intravenous ganciclovir or oral valganciclovir (for 21 days) followed by once daily valganciclovir until day 49 in all patients. Clinical and viral eradication of CMV disease was similar between groups. Clinical recurrence beyond day 49 was found in 15.1% and virological recurrence in 30.0%, no difference between groups (p > 0.77). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor for recurrence was failure to eradicate DNAemia by day 21 (clinical: OR 3.9 [1.3–11.3], p = 0.012; virological: OR 5.6 [2.5–12.6], p < 0.0001). Eight patients developed ganciclovir resistance, with no difference between groups (p = 0.62). Twenty patients (valganciclovir: 11, ganciclovir: 9, p = 0.82) died, 12 due to infections, two involving CMV disease. There were no differences in long-term outcomes between treatment arms, further supporting the use of oral valganciclovir for treatment of CMV disease. Persistent DNAemia at day 21, CMV IgG serostatus and development of resistance may be relevant factors for further individualization of treatment.     

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 Multicenter Study of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis up to Day 120 in CMV-Seropositive Lung Transplant Recipients

Seventy-six cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive lung transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir (900 mg/day) for CMV prophylaxis were compared with a group of 87 patients receiving oral ganciclovir (3000 mg/day). Prophylaxis was administered to day 120 post-transplantation and follow-up was 1 year. In addition, a study was conducted on risk factors for CMV infection/disease. CMV disease incidence was 7.9% and 16.1% for valganciclovir and oral ganciclovir, respectively (p = 0.11). Patients receiving valganciclovir had fewer viral syndromes (2.6% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.05), a similar rate of tissue-invasive disease (5.2% vs. 4.6%, p = ns), longer time-to-onset of CMV infection/disease (197.5 vs. 155.2 days, p < 0.05), and a lower probability of infection/disease while on prophylaxis (1.3% vs. 12.6%, p < 0.01). Nonetheless, leukopenia incidence was higher with valganciclovir (15.8% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.01), as was the need for treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects (11.8% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). CMV infection was similar in both groups (32.9% vs. 34.5%). Induction therapy with basiliximab and glucocorticosteroid treatment were independent risk factors for developing CMV infection/disease. In conclusion, valganciclovir prophylaxis results in a low incidence of CMV disease in lung transplant recipients and appears more effective than oral ganciclovir. Despite the comparatively higher incidence of adverse events with valganciclovir, the drug can be considered safe for prophylaxis.     

Cost of prophylaxis in the management of cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Limited economic data exist on the use of valganciclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. We compared the economics of sequential i.v. and oral ganciclovir prophylaxis vs. oral valganciclovir prophylaxis alone in high-risk (D+/R-) SOT patients. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System comparing the cost of sequential ganciclovir prophylaxis (induction with i.v. ganciclovir 10 mg/kg daily for 14 d followed by oral ganciclovir 1 g t.i.d. for 3 months) vs. oral valganciclovir prophylaxis (900 mg once daily for 100 d). Resource utilization data for both regimens were obtained from the literature and from clinical records of 83 patients in nine Spanish hospitals. Results were expressed as average cost per patient treated. RESULTS: The average cost per patient treated with sequential ganciclovir or valganciclovir prophylaxis was euro3715.51 and euro3295.90, respectively. The higher cost of ganciclovir therapy was due to concomitant administration of anti-CMV immunoglobulin (euro313.73), drug administration costs (euro401.45), catheter culture tests (euro13.64) and adverse events associated with catheter use (euro3.30). Following a sensitivity analysis, taking into account dose and duration of drug, concomitant medications and adverse events, costs for valganciclovir and sequential therapy were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Valganciclovir prophylaxis is as economical as sequential ganciclovir prophylaxis in high-risk D+/R- SOT patients. In addition, the once-daily dosing regimen of valganciclovir is more convenient, and avoids the complications associated with catheter use.     

Effects of the Intensity of Immunosuppressive Therapy on Outcome of Treatment for CMV Disease in Organ Transplant Recipients

An effective host immune response, critical for successful control of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in solid organ transplant recipients, is affected by intensity and type of immunosuppressive therapy. We used information prospectively captured in the VICTOR‐trial to investigate the impact of immunosuppressive therapy on short‐ and long‐term outcomes of CMV treatment in organ transplant recipients. Dual, as compared to triple, immunosuppressive therapy ([odds ratios] OR of 2.55; 95% CI: 1.51–4.60; p = 0.002), lower blood concentrations of calcineurin inhibitors (OR of 5.53; CI: 1.04–29.35; p = 0.045), and longer time since transplantation (OR of 1.70; CI: 1.01–2.87; p = 0.047) all showed better early (Day 21) CMV DNAemia eradication. We observed no effect of the intensity of the immunosuppressive therapy on overall rates of viral eradication or recurrence. The type of calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus/cyclosporine) or use of mycophenolate did not affect treatment efficacy, although both tacrolimus and mycophenolate treated patients showed a lower rate of virological recurrence OR 0.51 (95% CI: 0.26–0.98; p = 0.044) and OR 0.45 (95% CI: 0.22–0.93; p = 0.031), respectively. Lower total intensity of immunosuppressive therapy was associated with more effective early, but not overall, CMV DNAemia eradication by valganciclovir/ganciclovir therapy. Both mycophenolate and tacrolimus (rather than cyclosporine) therapy seem to be associated with reduced risk of recurrence.     

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.     

Valganciclovir preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk seropositive solid-organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: The role of valganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk seropositive transplant patients is not known. METHODS: We prospectively followed 301 seropositive solid organ transplant recipients to assess the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir (VGCV) in the prevention of CMV disease in high-risk patients. Asymptomatic patients with an antigenemia test >or=25 positive cells/2x10(5) polymorphonuclear cells received valganciclovir 900 mg twice a day as preemptive therapy until resolution of antigenemia (minimum 14 days). Additionally, patients treated with antilymphocytic drugs for more than 6 days received prophylaxis with VGCV 900 mg once a day during 90 days. Mean follow-up was 14 months (range 6-20 months). RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients received VGCV; 24 as preemptive therapy and 14 due to the use of antilymphocytic drugs. No patient developed CMV disease during the follow-up. Viral load (antigenemia) decreased a mean of 78% from baseline after 7 days of VGCV therapy (P=0.024) and 98% at day 14 (P=0.029). Two patients showed a relapse of the antigenemia test >or=25 positive cells and were successfully treated with a repeated course of VGCV. Leukopenia (<2500/mm3) developed in 3/24 (12.5%) recipients in the preemptive therapy group and required to discontinuing the drug in one of them. CONCLUSIONS: VGCV is safe and highly efficacious in the prevention of CMV disease in high-risk seropositive organ transplant recipients.     

Comparison of intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin pre-emptive treatment in cytomegalovirus-positive heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: We compared the use of intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin (CMVIG) as a pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Of 59 CMV-seropositive adult heart transplant recipients enrolled in Group 1, 37 tested positive for pp65 antigen within 12 weeks post-transplantation. These patients were randomized to receive either intravenous ganciclovir (n = 23) or CMVIG (n = 14). Group 2 included 133 CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients who were not tested for CMV antigenemia and who received no anti-CMV therapy. RESULTS: CMV disease developed in 0 of 59 patients from Group 1, and in 27 of 133 patients (20%) in Group 2 (p = 0.0001). The incidence of superinfections was lower in Group 1 (0.28 +/- 0.46) than in Group 2 (1.10 +/- 1.33) (p = 0.01). The 2 groups did not differ with regard to incidence of rejection (0.7 +/- 0.9 in Group 1 vs 1.0 +/- 1.2 in Group 2; p = NS), transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (14% in Group 1 vs 16% in Group 2; p = NS) or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (0% in Group 1 vs 2% in Group 2; p = NS). Ganciclovir and CMVIG therapies were associated with similar rates of rejection (0.52 +/- 0.6 with ganciclovir vs 0.50 +/- 0.60 with CMVIG; p = NS), superinfection (0.30 +/- 0.48 with ganciclovir vs 0.25 +/- 0.46 with CMVIG; p = NS), and transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (13% with ganciclovir vs 14% with CMVIG, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The pre-emptive anti-CMV approach is superior to prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients. Both ganciclovir and CMVIG are equally effective.     

Cytomegalovirus Disease in High-Risk Transplant Recipients Despite Ganciclovir or Valganciclovir Prophylaxis

The clinical patterns and predictors of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in kidney and/or pancreas transplant patients on ganciclovir (1.0 g po t.i.d.) or valganciclovir (450 mg po q.d.) prophylaxis were studied. This is a retrospective analysis of 129 transplant recipients. Median follow up was 12 months (range, 6-18 months). The overall incidence of CMV disease at 1-year post-transplant was 14% (4% tissue-invasive, 10% noninvasive). Seventeen of 18 patients were diagnosed with CMV after completion of 3 months' prophylaxis (median 8 weeks, range, 2-28 weeks). Induction treatment with thymoglobulin, and Donor +/Recipient - CMV status were the strongest predictors for the development of CMV disease. Cytomegalovirus incidence was not different between patients treated with ganciclovir or valganciclovir (15 vs. 17%, respectively). Valganciclovir (450 mg q.d.) is as effective as oral ganciclovir in CMV prophylaxis. High-risk individuals might require higher doses or longer duration of valganciclovir treatment.     

Pharmacokinetics of Low and Maintenance Dose Valganciclovir in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Valganciclovir is commonly used for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in renal transplant patients. A fixed dose of 900 mg daily is typically recommended, however, there has never been a formal pharmacokinetic study comparing various doses in renal transplant patients. We therefore compared the pharmacokinetic characteristics of intravenous ganciclovir (IV GCV) and oral ganciclovir (GCV) with two different doses of valganciclovir (VGCV) in an open-label crossover study. Ten adult kidney recipients participated in a four-phase crossover treatment schedule of IV GCV (2.5 mg/kg every 12 h), VGCV (900 mg daily), VGCV (450 mg daily) and oral GCV (1000 mg Q8 H). IV GCV and oral VGCV 900 mg daily achieved similar values for AUC_0–24 (median 60.63 vs. 62.86 μg/h/mL). Oral VGCV 450 mg achieved comparable AUC_0–24 values as oral GCV 1000 mg Q8 H (median AUC_0–24 35.9 vs. 29.04 μg/h/mL). Oral VGCV 900 mg daily provided systemic GCV exposure similar to IV GCV and confirms PV 16 000 study results. Further, VGCV 450 mg daily provided comparable systemic exposure versus oral GCV. Due to its favorable pharmacokinetic profile, data herein suggest that VGCV can be used in the early post-kidney transplant period, and that 450 mg daily provides ample drug exposure for effective CMV prophylaxis in kidney transplant patients.     

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.     

Efficacy of valganciclovir in the treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in kidney and pancreas transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is relatively common following solid organ transplant, particularly if a serologically negative recipient receives an organ from a serologically positive donor (D+/R-). Although valganciclovir is approved for the treatment of CMV retinitis in AIDS patients and is used for the prophylaxis against CMV infection in solid organ transplant patients, the current standard treatment for CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients remains intravenous ganciclovir. We retrospectively reviewed our experience using valganciclovir as treatment for CMV disease in CMV D+/R- kidney and/or pancreas transplant recipients from March 2002 to June 2005. A total of 37 cases with primary CMV disease were diagnosed and treated with either intravenous ganciclovir as induction followed with valganciclovir or valganciclovir from the beginning. We compared clinical outcomes and viremia between the two groups. Our data suggest that valganciclovir is an effective treatment modality for primary CMV disease in kidney and/or pancreas transplant recipients. It led to the resolution of disease and undetectable viremia. Valganciclovir allowed for early initiation of treatment and for treatment to be given as an outpatient. These advantages of valganciclovir have both health and economic impact for patients with CMV disease.     

Pharmacodynamics of oral ganciclovir and valganciclovir in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of ganciclovir following oral administration of ganciclovir or valganciclovir for prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in solid organ transplant recipients (n = 240/372). METHODS: The correlations between individual exposure to ganciclovir during prophylaxis, with CMV viremia incidence during and after treatment, CMV disease up to 12 months posttransplant, and hematological toxicity were assessed. RESULTS: Mean daily areas under the curve (AUCs) of ganciclovir from valganciclovir and oral ganciclovir were 46.3 +/- 15.2 and 28.0 +/- 10.9 microg.h/ml (mean +/- SD), respectively. Viremia was suppressed during prophylaxis when exposure to ganciclovir was 40-50 microg.h/ml, AUCs typical of those achieved in valganciclovir-treated patients. The development of viremia 1 month after ending prophylaxis was also reduced with higher ganciclovir AUC (median predicted incidence, 20% and 10% at AUCs of 33 and 50 microg h/ml, respectively). The development of CMV disease within 1 year of transplant was 17.6% and independent of prophylactic exposure to ganciclovir. There was only a weak tendency to increased neutropenia and leukopenia with higher ganciclovir exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The greater systemic exposure to ganciclovir delivered by valganciclovir was associated with delayed development of viremia. There was only a weak association between AUC and hematological toxicity.     

Efficacy of valganciclovir administered as preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients: impact on viral load and late-onset cytomegalovirus disease

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of valganciclovir used as preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in liver transplant recipients is not known. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2004, surveillance testing using CMV antigenemia was performed at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 posttransplant. A total of 28.8% (17/59) of the patients from 2001 to 2004 with antigenemia who received valganciclovir as preemptive therapy were compared with 26.2% (21/80) of the patients from 1996 to 2000 who received oral ganciclovir as preemptive therapy. RESULTS: The mean decline in the antigenemia level after initiation of valganciclovir and oral ganciclovir was 80.5% versus 50.7% at 1 week, 99.5% versus 89.4% at 2 weeks, and 100% versus 97.7% at 4 weeks, respectively. A higher proportion of patients who received valganciclovir (64.7%) belonged to the high-risk group (R-/D+) than patients who received oral ganciclovir (33.3%, P=0.10). Recurrent shedding was documented in 47.1% (8/17) of the patients in the valganciclovir group and 28.6% (6/21) of the patients in the oral ganciclovir group (P>0.20). Recurrent shedding correlated significantly with R-/D+ CMV serostatus and baseline CMV antigenemia level, regardless of the study group. No patient in either group developed CMV disease during or after the period of surveillance monitoring. The incidence of opportunistic infections and patient outcome did not differ for the valganciclovir group versus the oral ganciclovir group or patients without CMV infection (P>0.20). CONCLUSION: Antigenemia-directed valganciclovir as preemptive therapy seems to be effective for the prevention of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients, including high-risk patients.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of valgancyclovir as preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

We prospectively followed 70 CMV-seropositive solid organ transplant recipients to evaluate the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir (VGCV) as preemptive therapy based on antigenemia test to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. From December 2003 to May 2004, 12 of 70 (17%) asymptomatic patients who showed an antigenemia value > or =25 positive cells per 2 x 10(5) polymorphonuclear (PMN) were treated with VGCV (900 mg twice a day adjusted to renal function) until resolution of CMV antigenemia, a minimum of 14 days. No patient developed CMV disease during follow-up. Only one who showed an asymptomatic relapse of the antigenemia test > or =25 positive cells was successfully treated with a repeated course of VGCV. Mean duration of VGCV therapy was 18 days (range, 14 to 28). Antigenemia was negative in 7 of 12 (58%) patients after 14 days and negative in all patients 4 weeks after the administration of VGCV. No significant side effects were associated with the use of VGCV therapy. Preemptive VGCV therapy is safe and effective in the prevention of CMV disease in seropositive solid organ transplant recipients.     

Establishing pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of valganciclovir oral solution versus the tablet formulation

Dosing with valganciclovir tablets may not be appropriate in some patients, such as those on hemodialysis or children. A "tutti-frutti" flavored oral valganciclovir solution has been developed to provide flexibility in dosage needed to accommodate these patients. An adult, multicenter, open-label randomized trial was conducted to establish bioequivalence between valganciclovir oral solution and valganciclovir tablets. Pharmacokinetic profiles and safety of the oral solution versus the tablet formulation were determined in 23 renal transplant recipients with estimated creatinine clearance>or=60 mL/min who had been receiving cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with valganciclovir for >or=4 days prior to the administration of the study drug. Patients received two doses of 900 mg valganciclovir either by tablet or oral solution in random order once daily over 6 days. Plasma concentrations of ganciclovir were assessed on days 2, 4, and 6 predose and at 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 12 hours after the dose. Maximum mean plasma concentrations (Cmax) were 6.73 microg/mL and 6.39 microg/mL for the valganciclovir tablet and oral solution, respectively, with identical mean AUC0-24 of 51.2 microg.h/mL. For both the AUC0-24 and Cmax ratio, the 90% Cl of the mean ratios of the oral solution relative to the tablet formulation lies within the acceptance region (80% to 125%) required by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. With the demonstration of bioequivalence and no differences in the incidence of adverse effects, it will be possible to interchangeably use the oral formulation.