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 using oral ganciclovir or valganciclovir in kidney and pancreas-kidney transplantation under antibody preconditioning

We investigated retrospectively the risk factors for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection under ganciclovir or valganciclovir prophylaxis (oral ganciclovir 1 g tid, valganciclovir 450 mg/d) in our kidney and simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant patients undergoing transplantation between July 1, 2001 and February 28, 2003. Two hundred eleven patients receiving prophylactic oral ganciclovir or valganciclovir were included in the study. All patients were given antibody preconditioning (thymoglobulin 178, alemtuzumab 33). Duration of prophylactic treatment was between 3 and 8 months. Fifteen (7.1%) patients developed a positive CMV antigenemia in the first 6 months after transplantation, and 18 of 176 (10.2%) patients developed a positive CMV antigenemia during the first year. No patient developed tissue invasive CMV disease. At 6 months after transplantation, valganciclovir was slightly more effective than ganciclovir prophylaxis (P=.052). Positive donor CMV serology significantly increased the risk of CMV infection compared to CMV-negative donors (P=.014 and P=.003 at 6 and 12 months, respectively). Duration of CMV prophylaxis for more than 3 months decreased the risk of CMV infection (P=.04 and P=.009 at 6 and 12 months, respectively). Either valganciclovir prophylaxis (450 mg/d) or high-dose oral ganciclovir (1 g tid) is effective in preventing tissue-invasive CMV disease, and results in a low incidence of CMV antigenemia in patients undergoing kidney and SPK transplantation.     

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.     

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.     

Valganciclovir Dosing According to Body Surface Area and Renal Function in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Oral valganciclovir is effective prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in adults receiving solid organ transplantation (SOT). However, data in pediatrics are limited. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of valganciclovir oral solution or tablets in 63 pediatric SOT recipients at risk of CMV disease, including 17 recipients ≤2 years old. Patients received up to 100 days' valganciclovir prophylaxis; dosage was calculated using the algorithm: dose (mg) = 7 × body surface area × creatinine clearance (Schwartz method; CrCLS). Ganciclovir pharmacokinetics were described using a population pharmacokinetic approach. Safety endpoints were measured up to week 26. Mean estimated ganciclovir exposures showed no clear relationship to either body size or renal function, indicating that the dosing algorithm adequately accounted for both these variables. Mean ganciclovir exposures, across age groups and organ recipient groups were: kidney 51.8 ± 11.9 μg * h/mL; liver 61.7 ± 29.5 μg * h/mL; heart 58.0 ± 21.8 μg * h/mL. Treatment was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that in adults. Seven serious treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in five patients. Two patients had CMV viremia during treatment but none experienced CMV disease. In conclusion, a valganciclovir-dosing algorithm that adjusted for body surface area and renal function provides ganciclovir exposures similar to those established as safe and effective in adults     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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.