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.     

Late-onset cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients despite antiviral prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: The incidence and impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease that occurs despite CMV prophylaxis among liver transplant recipients have been incompletely defined. METHODS: The incidence and risk factors for CMV disease during the first posttransplant year in a cohort of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir were retrospectively analyzed using Cox proportional-hazard regression models. RESULTS: CMV disease developed in 19 of 259 recipients (7% [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.11]) at a median of 4.5 months posttransplant, included syndrome (63%) or tissue-invasive disease (37%), and was independently associated with an increased risk of mortality during the first posttransplant year (hazard ratio 14 [95% confidence interval 3.8-54], P=0.0007). The incidence was higher (10/38 [26%] vs. 8/180 [4.5%], P<0.0001) in seronegative recipients (R-) of an organ from a seropositive donor (D+) compared with seropositive (R+) patients, respectively. D+R- status was the only variable significantly associated with CMV disease in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Late CMV disease develops in a substantial proportion of D+R- recipients after prophylaxis is discontinued, is not accurately predicted by patient factors, and is associated with increased mortality. New strategies to identify D+R- patients at risk and to reduce the incidence and impact of late CMV disease in this group are warranted.     

24-week oral ganciclovir prophylaxis in kidney recipients is associated with reduced symptomatic cytomegalovirus disease compared to a 12-week course

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is associated with reduced graft and patient survival among kidney recipients. The highest risk of CMV infection occurs in CMV-naive recipients of kidneys from seropositive donors (D+/R-). Optimal CMV prophylaxis is not established. This prospective cohort study compared the safety and efficacy of prophylaxis with 12 versus 24 weeks of oral ganciclovir. METHODS: We prospectively administered 24 weeks ganciclovir to 31 D+/R- recipients. The control group comprised 39 patients transplanted in the immediately preceding era who received a 12-week course of prophylaxis. All patients received cytolytic therapy within the first month, as well as a tacrolimus-based maintenance regimen. A logistic regression model was fit to examine the relationship between 24 weeks ganciclovir prophylaxis and the odds of developing CMV infection by one year. RESULTS: Groups were matched, though the 12-week cohort had more delayed graft function than their 24-week counterparts (45% vs. 29%, P=0.04). CMV infection occurred in 31% and 7% patients in the 12-week and 24-week groups, respectively (P相似文献   

Clinical Utility of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Serology Testing in High-risk CMV D+/R− Transplant Recipients

Late-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a significant problem in D+/R- solid organ transplant (SOT) patients who receive antiviral prophylaxis. We assessed the clinical utility of CMV IgG and IgM serology testing for predicting late-onset CMV disease. We evaluated 352 D+/R- transplant recipients who participated in a trial comparing 100 days of ganciclovir versus valganciclovir prophylaxis. CMV serology was assessed on day 28, 56, 100, and 6 and 12 months post-transplant. IgG seroconversion occurred in 26.9% of patients by day 100, and in 63.4% and 75.3% by 6 and 12 months, respectively. IgM seroconversion occurred in 8.3%, 41.8% and 54.9% by day 100, month 6 and month 12, respectively. Seroconversion by day 100 (end of prophylaxis) was not predictive of subsequent CMV disease (CMV disease 13.3% if seropositive vs. 17.8% if seronegative; p = NS). However, at 6 months post-transplant, IgG serostatus was predictive of subsequent CMV disease between month 6 and 12 (CMV disease 1.3% if seropositive vs. 10.0% if seronegative; p = 0.002). In D+/R- patients, CMV serology testing is for the most part not clinically useful for predicting subsequent disease. However, seroconversion by 6 months may be useful for identifying patients at risk of late-onset CMV disease.     

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.     

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.     

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 prospective study of the natural course of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal allograft recipients

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the single most frequent infectious complication in renal transplant recipients. Because no CMV-prophylaxis is given and ganciclovir is used only as deferred therapy for CMV disease at our center, we have been able to study the natural course of CMV infections. The aim was to assess risk factors for CMV infection and disease and thus identify subgroups of patients likely to benefit from CMV prophylaxis or preemptive therapy. METHODS: Between October 1994 and July 1997, 477 consecutive renal transplant recipients (397 first transplants and 80 retransplants) were included in the study. The patients were followed prospectively for 3 months with serial measurements of CMV pp65 antigen for monitoring activity of CMV infections. RESULTS: The incidence of CMV infections in first transplants was 68% in D+R- and D+/-R+ serostatus groups, whereas the incidence of CMV disease was higher in D+R- (56%) than in D+/-R+ (20%, P<0.001). No difference in severity of CMV disease in D+R- and D+/-R+ was seen except for an increased incidence of hepatitis in primary infections. One of 14 deaths could be associated with CMV disease in a seropositive recipient. Cox regression analysis showed that rejection (RR 2.5, P<0.01) and serostatus group D+R- (RR 3.9, P<0.001) were significant risk factors for development of CMV disease. The maximum CMV pp65 antigen count had significant correlation to disease only in CMV seropositive recipients, P<0.001. Conclusion. Renal transplant recipients can safely be given deferred ganciclovir therapy for CMV disease if they are intensively monitored for CMV infection. Patients with primary CMV infection (D+R-), CMV infected patients undergoing anti-rejection therapy and R+ patients with high CMV pp65 counts seem to have a particular potential for benefit from preemptive anti-CMV-therapy.     

Impact of valganciclovir prophylaxis on the development of severe late-cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of prolonged prophylaxis with valganciclovir in cytomegalovirus (CMV) donor/recipient serodiscordance (D+/R-) patients, concerns about a high incidence of late and invasive CMV disease associated with mortality have emerged. We compared the characteristics of CMV disease in D+/R- patients receiving prolonged valganciclovir prophylaxis with R+ patients. METHODS: We prospectively followed all solid organ transplant recipients from January 2004 to December 2005. CMV prophylaxis with valganciclovir or ganciclovir was administered as follows: donor- recipient serodiscordance (D+/R-), 12 weeks; induction with antithymocyte globulin or acute rejection episodes requiring steroid pulses, 15 to 30 days; and CMV R+ double kidney-pancreas, 15 days. Transplant characteristics and the development of CMV disease variables were collected for all patients. We defined 2 groups according to the risk of CMV disease: CMV donor/recipient mismatch (D+/R-) and recipient CMV-positive (R+) groups. RESULTS: During the study period we performed 481 solid organ transplantations: 237 kidney, 34 kidney-pancreas, 157 liver, 38 heart, 13 liver-kidney, and 2 heart-kidney. Overall, 36 patients developed CMV disease (7.5%). CMV donor-recipient mismatch (D+/R-) was associated with a greater risk of CMV disease compared with CMV-positive recipients (16% vs 7%; P = .036). Prophylaxis against CMV was longer in the D+/R- group (mean days 73 vs 15; P < .001). CMV disease appeared later in the D+/R- than in R+ group (mean days 123 vs 59; P < .001). We observed a trend toward a lower incidence of tissue-invasive CMV disease among the D+/R- group compared with the R+ group without significance (14% vs 41%; P = .382). Three patients died in the first 30 days after the onset of CMV disease, all of them in the R+ group. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, high-risk patients (D+/R-) receiving prolonged prophylaxis with valganciclovir developed later CMV disease, but this was neither more tissue-invasive nor more life-threatening than in the R+ group.     

Risk factors and impact of cytomegalovirus disease in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The relevance of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) transplant recipients in the modern era of immunosuppression and antiviral therapeutics is largely unquantified. We sought to determine the risk factors of CMV disease and its impact on SPK transplant outcomes in recipients all receiving a consistent regime of maintenance immunosuppression and CMV prophylaxis. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single center study of 100 consecutive SPK transplant recipients. All received maintenance immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, and prednisone. CMV prophylaxis consisted of a short course of parenteral gancyclovir followed by oral gancyclovir. Recipients at high-risk (D+/R-) for CMV also received CMV hyperimmune globulin. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for CMV disease and risk factors for adverse outcomes in SPK transplantation were determined. The effect of duration of prophylaxis on timing and severity of CMV disease in high-risk (D+/R-) SPK transplant recipients was also evaluated. RESULTS: The actual 1-year rate of CMV disease was 17.0% (12.0% noninvasive, 5.0% tissue invasive); and according to donor and recipient CMV serological status was: D-/R+: 0%; D-/R-: 2.8%; D+/R+: 25.6%; and D+/R-: 40.6%. Multivariate analysis showed transplantation of organs from a donor with positive CMV serology to be predictive of CMV disease with a relative risk of 63.37 (P=0.0052). In the high-risk (D+/R-) subgroup, the duration of prophylactic therapy delayed onset of CMV disease, but had minimal effect on severity. Invasive CMV disease was an independent predictor of mortality but did not decrease kidney or pancreas allograft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of SPK transplantation have improved in the current era of modern immunosuppression, yet CMV remains an important pathogen. The serological status of the organ donor and the duration of CMV prophylaxis are predictive of who and when CMV disease may occur. Nevertheless, new strategies that reduce risk and severity of CMV disease are still needed.     

Gancyclovir prophylaxis in high risk patients

The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease between seronegative recipients who received a CMV seropositive kidney (D+/R-) and seropositive recipients who received a CMV seropositive kidney (D+/R+). Among 42 patients included in the study, 26 were D+/R-, and the other 16 were D+/R+. Immunosuppression was based on cyclosporine (n = 12), tacrolimus (n = 28), or other agents (n = 2). Twenty-four seronegative patients were treated with gancyclovir for 3 months. The 16 D+/R+ patients did not receive CMV prophylaxis. Two D+/R- patients did not receive gancyclovir prophylaxis because of various health problems just after the surgery. Over the year post-renal transplant, there were 10 (23.8%) episodes of CMV disease. The two D+/R- patients who were not treated with gancyclovir developed CMV disease. The incidence of disease was higher in patients who were given cyclosporine (41.7% vs 17.9%). In conclusion, sero negative patients who received a kidney from a seropositive donor had greater risk of developing CMV disease. Despite gancyclovir treatment, the incidence was higher than in D+/R+ cases without treatment.     

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.     

The risk of cytomegalovirus recurrence after kidney transplantation

Recurrent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections commonly occur after kidney transplantation. We studied the impact of secondary prophylaxis and other factors on the risk of CMV recurrence. All kidney transplant recipients between 2004 and 2009 in our institution were analyzed (N = 254). Patients with CMV infection were included (N = 62). CMV infections were diagnosed with quantitative PCR. CMV D+/R- recipients received 6 months valganciclovir prophylaxis, after which DNAemia was monitored. After treatment, secondary prophylaxis with valganciclovir was given at the clinician's discretion for 2-26 weeks and CMV DNAemia was monitored. Altogether 43 reactivations and 19 primary infections occurred. Antiviral treatment with valganciclovir or ganciclovir was given to 45 patients; 34/62 (55%) patients received secondary prophylaxis for mean 62 days (range 14-180 days). CMV recurrence occurred in 14/43 (33%) seropositive patients and in 4/19 (21%) patients after primary infection. In logistic regression, delayed graft function (OR 3.4) and high viral load (>100 000 copies/ml) at initial diagnosis (OR 5.9) predicted recurrence. Use or length of secondary prophylaxis, CMV serostatus, level of immunosuppression, HLA mismatch, antiviral treatment, or time to clearance of viremia during treatment did not predict recurrence of CMV. CMV recurrences occur commonly despite secondary prophylaxis. High viral load at diagnosis predicted the risk of recurrent CMV infection.     

Cytomegalovirus infection in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation

INTRODUCTION: In this open-label multicenter study, 205 simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant recipients between 1998 and 2000 were randomly assigned to tacrolimus or cyclosporine-microemulsion (ME). All patients received concomitant rATG induction therapy, mycophenolate mofetil and short-term corticosteroids. We report the 3-year data related to the occurrence, severity and effect of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. The type of CMV prophylaxis and treatment was at the discretion of the investigator. RESULTS: The overall incidence of CMV infection was 34% with no difference in incidence between the tacrolimus and cyclosporine-ME treatment arms. Statistically significant fewer CMV infections occurred among patients who received ganciclovir (22%) than those who did not receive prophylaxis (42%; P = .0075) or were treated with acyclovir (43%; P = .0066). The CMV infection rate according to donor recipient CMV serological status was: D-/R- group 11%, which was lower than the D-/R+ group at 40% (P = .0035), the D+/R+ group at 37% (P = .0024), or the D+/R- group at 52% (P = .00001). Among the last three groups, the infection rate was lower in patients on ganciclovir than those with no prophylaxis or on acyclovir (22% vs 64%; P = .00001). The incidence of acute rejection episodes was higher among patients without ganciclovir prophylaxis. No difference was observed in actuarial patient, kidney, or pancreas survival rates between patients with versus without infection. CONCLUSIONS: Ganciclovir prophylaxis effectively prevented CMV infection in SPK transplant recipients, especially in higher risk groups. An effect of CMV prophylaxis on the incidence of rejection is possible.     

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.     

Long-term results of CMV hyperimmune globulin prophylaxis in 377 heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) has emerged as the most important pathogen to affect the post-operative course after heart transplantation. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the efficiency of CMV hyperimmune globulin (CMVIG) prophylaxis in preventing CMV disease in aggressively immunosuppressed patients after heart transplantation. METHODS: We studied 377 heart transplant recipients who received quadruple-immunosuppressive therapy and CMVIG as sole CMV prophylaxis. The study population was categorized into 4 groups according to donor and recipient CMV serology at the time of transplantation (D+/R+, D+/R-, D-/R+, D-/R-) and was monitored for CMV immediate early antigen in peripheral blood cells, in urine sediments, and in throat washings; for the presence of serum CMV immunoglobulin M and CMV immunoglobulin G; and for clinical evidence of CMV-related symptoms. In addition, we compared the incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy and infection among the groups. RESULTS: During the first 5 years after transplantation, CMV disease developed in 79 patients (20.96%). Comparison among the groups showed significantly increased risk for CMV disease in allograft recipients of organs from seropositive donors (D+, 27.31%; D-, 11.33%; p = 0.0003). We observed 6 CMV-associated deaths, all in CMV-antibody-negative recipients. Additionally CMV-positive recipients had a greater incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (p = 0.048), and a greater overall infection rate (p = 0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin administration prevents CMV disease and infection in aggressively immunosuppressed heart transplant recipients. Because fatal CMV disease in CMV-negative recipients of organs from seropositive donors could not be prevented with CMVIG alone, we recommend the additional use of prophylactic ganciclovir in this CMV-mismatched population.     

Risk factors for cytomegalovirus viremia and disease developing after prophylaxis in high-risk solid-organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) D+/R- solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients carry increased risk of developing CMV disease; however, other risk factors in these patients have not been delineated. METHODS: We examined 20 demographic and clinical variables for their association with the development of CMV disease, as defined by an independent endpoint committee (IEC) and also by the investigator (investigator treated [IT]), or CMV viremia within 12 months of transplant in D+/R- transplant recipients who received prophylaxis with valganciclovir or oral ganciclovir for 100 days. RESULTS: Recipients with low creatinine clearance (Ccr,<40 mL/min) at screening had a significantly increased hazard of developing IEC-defined CMV disease (hazards ratio [HR]=4.28, confidence interval [CI] 1.69, 10.83). Females were twice as likely (HR=2.19, CI .21, 3.99) to develop IEC-defined CMV disease than males. These variables were associated with an increased risk of IEC-defined CMV disease in time-dependent models. Recipients with blood group A were also more likely to develop IEC-defined CMV disease than those with group O (HR=2.36 CI 1.24, 4.51) in the logistic regression model only. Prophylactic drug, organ type, recipient age, rejection episodes, and maintenance immunosuppression regimen were not associated with IEC-defined CMV disease. Female sex was the only variable associated with the development of CMV viremia (odds ratio [OR]=1.65; CI 1.03, 2.65) and IT CMV disease (OR=1.78; CI 1.08, 2.93). CONCLUSIONS: Low Ccr at screening and blood type A are risk factors for IEC-defined CMV disease, and female sex was a risk factor for IEC- and IT-defined CMV disease and viremia in high-risk SOT recipients. These variables should perhaps be considered when optimizing treatment.     

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.     

Effect of donor-recipient cytomegalovirus serologic status on outcomes in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients

Diabetic patients undergoing simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation (SKPT) may be at high risk for developing cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. To study this issue, we analyzed 297 SKPT patients enrolled into a multicenter trial of two daclizumab dosing strategies versus no antibody induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. Complete donor (D) and recipient (R) CMV serology values were available in 294 cases and were distributed as follows: 86 (29%) D+/R-. Eighty-six (29%) D+R+; 45 (16%) D-/R+; 77 (26%) D-/R-; CMV antiviral prophylaxis was center specific, but 98% of patients received either ganciclovir or acyclovir. No differences existed in demographic or transplant characteristics or immunosuppressive regimens among the four groups except that more African-American SKPT recipients were CMV positive at transplant (P <.001). At 6 months, no differences were seen in patient and graft survival rates (GSR) and the incidence of acute rejection (AR) among the groups. However, the CMV D+/R- group had a significantly higher incidence of CMV infection/disease (14%) than the other groups collectively (4%, P <.05). Most cases of CMV infection/disease occurred greater than 3 months posttransplant when prophylaxis was discontinued. In the D-/R- group, the pancreas GSR was higher (94% vs 86% in the remaining three groups) and the incidence of AR was lower (16% vs 25% in the remaining three groups, both P =.09). Primary CMV exposure remains a major risk factor for CMV infection/disease, but does not have an adverse impact on short-term outcomes. Conversely, protective CMV seronegative matching may have a beneficial effect on outcomes.     

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with intravenous polyvalent immunoglobulin in high-risk renal transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seronegative renal allograft recipients (R-), particularly those with a graft from a CMV-seropositive donor (D+), are at high risk for primary CMV infection. CMV resistance to antiviral oral therapy is an emerging problem in renal transplantation, prompting development of new prophylactic strategies. We retrospectively studied the 1-year posttransplantation incidence of CMV infection in high-risk renal transplant recipients, in whom polyvalent intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) were used as prophylaxis. Forty R- patients received immunoprophylaxis by polyvalent IVIg (0.25 g/kg weekly for 8 weeks, starting on the operative day). CMV serological tests remained negative in eight patients (20%). Eight patients (20%) had asymptomatic CMV infection while 24 (60%) developed CMV syndrome and were treated with gancyclovir (10 mg/kg/day intravenously for 3 weeks). None had CMV disease or opportunistic infection. Six patients (15%) had biopsy-proven acute rejection, which followed CMV syndrome in three cases. One-year renal allograft and patient survivals were 95% and 97.5%, respectively. Mean serum creatinine level was 124 +/- 33 micromol/L at 1 year. Clinical tolerance of IVIg was excellent, without any episode of acute renal failure. Polyvalent IVIg provides effective prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients at high risk for CMV infection and is associated with excellent 1-year allograft survival. Because of their immunomodulatory functions, IVIg may have a beneficial effect on the incidence of acute and chronic rejection and allograft survival. A randomized prospective study is required to evaluate long-term effects of CMV prophylaxis with polyvalent IVIg compared to antiviral agents in renal transplant recipients.