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.     

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.     

Delayed-onset primary cytomegalovirus disease after liver transplantation.

Clinical practice guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis to cytomegalovirus (CMV) donor-positive/recipient-negative (D+/R-) liver transplant recipients. We assessed the outcome of this strategy by determining the incidence, clinical features, and risk factors of CMV disease among CMV D+/R- liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis. Sixty-seven CMV D+/R- liver transplant recipients (mean age+/-standard deviation: 49.5+/-11.4 years; 75% male) received oral ganciclovir [n=9 (13%)] or valganciclovir [n=58 (87%)] prophylaxis for a median duration of 92 days (interquartile range: 91-100). No breakthrough CMV disease was observed during antiviral prophylaxis. However, primary CMV disease was observed in 2%, 25%, 27%, 27%, and 29% of patients at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, after antiviral prophylaxis was stopped. The incidence of delayed-onset primary CMV disease was similar between those who received oral ganciclovir and valganciclovir. Nine (47%) patients had CMV syndrome, 8 (42%) had gastrointestinal CMV disease, and 2 (11%) had CMV hepatitis. Female patients (P=0.01) and younger age at transplant (P=0.03) were associated with an increased risk, whereas diabetes mellitus (P<0.001) was significantly associated with a lower risk of delayed-onset primary CMV disease. Allograft loss or mortality occurred in 8 (12%) patients during the median follow-up period of 3.31 (range: 0.8-5.9) years. No significant association was observed between CMV disease and patient and allograft survival. In conclusion, CMV disease remains a common complication in CMV D+/R- liver transplant patients during the contemporary era of antiviral prophylaxis. Female patients and younger patients are at increased risk of delayed-onset primary CMV disease.     

Impact of cytomegalovirus in organ transplant recipients in the era of antiviral prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: Antiviral prophylaxis has been shown to decrease the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in organ transplant recipients, but whether CMV disease that occurs despite prophylaxis is associated with mortality remains unknown. METHODS: The clinical features and risk factors for CMV disease in a cohort of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis were assessed retrospectively. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the relationship of CMV to mortality during the first posttransplant year. RESULTS: CMV disease developed in 37 of 437 (8.5%) recipients at a median of 4.5 (range, 2.5 to 12) months posttransplant and was associated only with donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative serostatus in multivariate analysis (P<0.0001). Mortality at 1 year was 12% (51 of 437) and was infection-associated in 49% of cases. In multivariate analysis, CMV disease was independently associated with overall mortality at 1 year (HR, 5.1, P=0.002) and even more strongly with infection-associated mortality (HR 11, P=0.002). There was no association of CMV with noninfection-associated mortality (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Late CMV disease is an important clinical problem in liver transplant recipients who receive antiviral prophylaxis, and is strongly and independently associated with mortality. Strategies to prevent late CMV disease are warranted.     

Who among cytomegalovirus-seropositive liver transplant recipients is at risk for cytomegalovirus infection?

A vast majority of the transplant recipients are cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive (R+). We sought to assess variables predictive of CMV infection, specifically in R+ liver transplant recipients. Study patients comprised 182 consecutive liver transplant recipients who survived at least 14 days after transplantation. Surveillance testing was used to detect CMV infection. Pre-emptive therapy was employed for the prevention of CMV disease, however, no antiviral prophylaxis was used for CMV infection. CMV infection developed in 32.5% (38 of 117) of R+ patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of R-/D+, and 3.8% (1 of 26) of R-/D- patients. In R+ patients, Hispanic race (21.6% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.06), donor CMV seropositivity (73.7% vs. 45.6%, P = 0.005), and hepatocellular carcinoma (23.7% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.05) correlated with a higher risk of CMV infection. In a multivariate model, Hispanic race (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.03-11.6, P = 0.045), donor CMV serostatus (OR: 4.0, 95% CI: 1.6-10.2, P = 0.003) and hepatocellular carcinoma (OR: 5.8, 95% CI: 1.6-20.5, P = 0.006) were all significant independent predictors of CMV infection. The aforementioned variables did not portend a higher risk of CMV infection in R-/D+ patients; donor CMV seropositivity overwhelmed all other risk factors in R- patients (P < 0.00001). In conclusion, CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients at risk for CMV infection can be identified based on readily assessable variables. Preventive strategies may be selectively targeted toward these patients.     

Influence of ganciclovir prophylaxis on citomegalovirus, human herpesvirus 6, and human herpesvirus 7 viremia in renal transplant recipients

In order to know the influence of ganciclovir (GCV) prophylaxis on cytomegalovirus (CMV) human herpesvirus (HHV)-6 and HHV-7 replication in renal transplant recipients, three groups were studies: 54 patients without GCV; 29, with short-term GCV prophylaxis (less than 30 days); and 51, with long-term GCV prophylaxis (more than 60 days). CMV viremia was more prevalent in the first group (74%, 55%, and 29%, respectively), but CMV replication was also found in 14 patients during therapy, in the other two groups. The antiviral did not affect the prevalence of HHV-6 (67.2%) or HHV-7 (76%), but HHV-6 viremia appeared later (42 +/- 31 vs 21 +/- 25/38 +/- 29 days posttransplant) and was shorter (29 +/- 30 vs 62 +/- 34/41 +/- 33 days) among patients with long-term GCV prophylaxis. On the other hand, CMV viremia was longer when HHV-6 replication was present (40 +/- 25 days vs 18 +/- 16 days). In addition, HHV-7 DNA was detected in all patients with CMV disease.     

The impact of the prevention strategies on the indirect effects of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients

Transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy are at increased risk of active cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease. Without appropriate prophylaxis, as many as 80% of solid organ transplant recipients may experience CMV infection. In addition to the direct effects of CMV, infection may be associated with a range of indirect effects, including an increase in risk of other infections, as well as a higher incidence of rejection, graft loss and death. The indirect effects of CMV infection can vary depending on the transplanted organ. For example, CMV-infected kidney transplant recipients may be at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, while CMV infection in liver transplant recipients may potentiate hepatitis C infection and increase the risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. Indirect effects result from a number of pathological processes, including immune modulation and immunosuppression, generation of cytotoxic, pro-inflammatory responses, and smooth muscle proliferation. Prophylactic treatment with antiviral medication can reduce the risk of CMV disease, thereby improving graft survival and overall outcomes, particularly in kidney and heart transplant recipients. Antiviral prophylaxis should be considered for all patients at risk of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation. In this paper we review the main indirect effects of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients, and the impact of CMV prophylaxis on these effects.     

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     

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

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

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.     

The use of consensus guidelines for management of cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection imposes a significant economic burden on susceptible patients after renal transplantation. Our study was conducted to determine the prediction, probability, consequences, and treatment costs of CMV infection under Canadian consensus guidelines in 270 sequential transplant patients. Transplant patients from donors positive (D(+)) for CMV into recipients negative (R(-)) for CMV received antiviral prophylaxis for 14 weeks and all but donor negative (D(-))/R(-) patients were monitored weekly for the CMVpp65 marker expression. Marker-positive patients and patients with CMV infection or disease received antiviral treatment. Within the first 6 months, 27% of the 270 patients tested had incidences of asymptomatic CMV infection, while 9% had CMV syndrome or disease. Only 1% of patients had infection after 6 months. The CMVpp65 marker levels were significantly greater in patients with syndrome or disease; but post-test probabilities and predictive value of the marker assay were low. Mean direct costs for care were $2256 and ranged from $927 for D(-)/R(-) patients to $7069 in the D(+)/R(-) patients. Extension of antiviral prophylaxis to D(+) or D(+)/R(+) patients significantly increased the estimated mean costs for an absolute reduction to 4% in CMV syndrome or disease. Our studies show that current guidelines for treatment enable effective control of CMV infection; however, alternative strategies have different economic impact.     

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with ganciclovir in kidney transplant recipients receiving induction antilymphocyte antibodies

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the serious viral infections after organ transplantation, especially in patients receiving anti-lymphocyte antibodies. Prevention of the infection using antiviral chemotherapy (ganciclovir) has gained interest in the transplant community due to the availability of quantitative methods for viral detection and monitoring. METHODS: Forty-six CMV seropositive kidney transplant recipients were assigned to receive induction immunosuppression with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG, Fresenius). Prophylactic intravenous ganciclovir was administered for 2 weeks at a dose of 5 mg/kg/d (adjusted to kidney function) starting from the day of surgery. Patients were monitored regularly for CMV infection or disease over 1 year posttransplant. The time to CMV manifestation, the number of antigenemia assay-positive cells, the clinical severity of infection, the incidence of acute rejection, the graft function, and the duration of hospital stay were evaluated. This group was compared to a historical matched control cohort (n = 37) transplanted earlier who did not receive prophylactic ganciclovir. RESULT: The incidence of CMV disease was significantly less among the prophylaxis than the control group (6/46 patients [13%] vs 16/37 patients [43.2%], P = <.004). The time to develop CMV manifestations was much longer in the prophylaxis group than in the control group (median 92 vs 32 days, P 相似文献   

Prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an opportunistic infection frequently found after solid organ transplantation, and it contributes significantly to mortality and morbidity. CMV-seronegative recipients of grafts from CMV-seropositive donors have the highest risk of CMV disease. The most appropriate strategy for preventing CMV disease in this population is a matter of active debate. In this study, we compared prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV disease in donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D(+) /R(-) ) liver recipients. To this end, we selected a retrospective cohort of liver recipients (1992-2009) for analysis. D(+) /R(-) patients were identified from the liver transplant program database. Eighty of 878 consecutive liver recipients (9%) were D(+) /R(-) . Six of these patients died within 30 days of transplantation and were excluded. Thirty-five of the remaining D(+) /R(-) patients (47%) received prophylaxis, and 39 patients (53%) followed a preemptive strategy based on CMV antigenemia surveillance. Fifty-four (73%) were men, the median age was 49 years (range = 15-68 years), and the mean follow-up was 68 months (range = 8-214 months). The baseline characteristics and the initial immunosuppressive regimens were similar for the 2 groups. Ganciclovir or valganciclovir was the antiviral drug used initially in both strategy groups. CMV disease occurred more frequently among D(+) /R(-) liver recipients receiving preemptive therapy (33.3% versus 8.6% for the prophylaxis group, P = 0.01), whereas late-onset CMV disease was found only in patients receiving prophylaxis (5.7% versus 0% for the preemptive therapy group, P = 0.22). No significant differences in acute allograft rejection, other opportunistic infections, or case fatality rates were observed. According to our data, prophylaxis was more effective than preemptive therapy in preventing CMV disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl, 2012. ? 2012 AASLD.     

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.     

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.     

Risk Factors for Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients With Cytomegalovirus Antigenemia

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections, associated with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) are known to develop in cytomegalovirus (CMV)-infected transplant recipients due to the indirect effects of CMV. This study evaluated risk factors for PTLD among pediatric liver transplant recipients with CMV infections. We reviewed the medical records of 119 patients ≤18 years old who underwent liver transplantation between September 1996 and April 2009. Sixty-six subjects (55.5%) displayed CMV antigenemia during the study period; 15 (12.6%) developed PTLD. Of these, 10 developed PTLD after CMV antigenemia. The other patients (n = 5) were excluded due to negative CMV antigenemia. The incidence of PTLD influenced by CMV infection was not significantly different from the incidence of PTLD without underlying CMV (P = .258). There were no differences in age, gender, antiviral prophylaxis, type of liver transplantation, or acute rejection episodes in the incidence of between patients with versus without PTLD. EBV but not CMV high-risk groups were a predictor for the development of PTLD (P = .035). CMV syndrome, tissue-invasive CMV disease, and CMV peak titer were not associated with an increased risk of PTLD. The primary risk factor for PTLD was EBV high-risk patients (donor positive/recipient negative). CMV disease was not associated with PTLD in pediatric liver transplant recipients with CMV infections.     

Experience with low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis in adult liver transplant recipients

Valganciclovir (VGCV) is considered the agent of choice after organ transplant for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of a low-dose regimen after liver transplant (OLT). Eighty-five patients who underwent OLT between August 2002 and August 2004 were included. All patient data for the first 12 months after transplant were collected. Patients received VGCV 450 mg once daily for 3 months posttransplant. CMV infection was based on detection of CMV virus or viral proteins in blood. CMV disease was defined by the presence of positive antigenemia/viremia and evidence of clinical symptoms and/or tissue findings. Patients were D+R+ (54%) and D-R+ (29%), D+R-(11%) and D-R-(6%). Overall, CMV infection and disease occurred in 13% (11/85). CMV infection and disease occurred in 7% and 6%, respectively. CMV infection and disease occurred in 44% (D+R-), 13% (D+R+), 4% (D-R+) patients. The mean time to onset of CMV infection and disease was 103 days (14 to 312 days). Overall, 82% of patients received antibody therapy. The most common adverse events associated with VGCV were leukopenia (16%), thrombocytopenia (4%), anemia (<1%), and neurotoxicity (<1%). Low-dose VGCV was not an effective means to prevent CMV infection in high-risk (D+R-) patients, especially those who received antibody induction. High-risk patients may require a high-dose regimen, such as 900 mg daily, and/or a longer period of prophylaxis, and/or reduction in the use of potent antibody treatments after liver transplant.     

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

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

Significance of cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplantation

The aim of this study was to establish the relationship between vascular lesion chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) and the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in kidney transplanted patients. We studied 259 consecutive kidney transplant recipients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months; the induction immunosuppressive therapy included a calcineurin inhibitor, mycophenolate mofetil, steroids, and the use of an antilymphocyte serum if the patients developed delayed graft function. CMV early antigen detection (pp65) was performed on a weekly basis between days 30 and 90 post transplantation. Prophylactic treatment was administered in the donor +/recipient-risk group, and preemptive therapy delivered for positive antigenemia namely 3 days of intravenous [IV] gancyclovir [GCV] plus 11 days of oral therapy [in the case of infection], or 14 days of IV GCV [in the case of disease]). An acute kidney allograft rejection episode preceded CMV in 64.3% of the patients, and CMV preceded acute rejection in 35.7% of the cases. We conclude that CMV disease is an independent risk factor for CAN. CMV infection is probably associated with CAN, suggesting that the greater the viral load, the higher the risk of CAN. It may be advisable to perform universal prophylaxis to lower the viral load and CAN.     

Efficacy and safety of preemptive anti-CMV therapy with valganciclovir after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: CMV infections still pose a potentially serious threat to kidney transplant recipients and have a significant impact on graft as well as patient survival. The antiviral agent valganciclovir (VGCV) has a greater bioavailability after oral administration than oral ganciclovir (GCV) and can be considered a substitute for GCV. The substance is approved in North America and Europe for anti-CMV prophylaxis after organ transplantation. In this pilot study, we examined if VGCV could also be administered in preemptive treatment of CMV infections. METHODS: Twenty-eight renal transplant recipients suffering from 32 asymptomatic episodes of CMV infection were treated with VGCV and followed up. CMV infection was diagnosed by routine controls of pp65-antigenemia in pre-defined intervals. All patients received sequential quadruple immunosuppression. VGCV was given for up to 12 wk in a dosage adapted to renal graft function. Efficacy and safety parameters were monitored for 16 wk. RESULTS: Twenty-seven episodes of CMV antigenemia, two patients progressing to CMV syndrome and three patients progressing to CMV disease were treated. Primary efficiency was 79%, Four patients relapsed and were treated with a second course resulting in serological recovery. Two patients did not respond to oral VCGV and were switched to another antiviral agent. Graft function remained stable during and after treatment. Serious side effects were seen in seven patients, four patients complained of diarrhea and gastrointestinal pain, three patients suffered from leucopenia, in one of these treatment had to be temporary paused. Fifty-nine percent of all episodes were treated in a completely ambulatory setting. CONCLUSIONS: VGCV can be considered as an option also for preemptive treatment of CMV infections after renal transplantation. The antiviral potency seems to be adequate, potential side effects are comparable with IV GCV. Because of the improved pharmacokinetics of VGCV the substance can be used to abbreviate or even completely avoid in-hospital care of CMV infections.