Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with valganciclovir in African-American renal allograft recipients based on donor/recipient serostatus

There is a paucity of data examining the efficacy of valganciclovir (VGC) for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant patients, particularly with regard to utilization of a risk-stratified dosing regimen. Eighty adult African-American (AA) renal allograft recipients transplanted from November 3, 2001 to May 28, 2003 and followed for 22 +/- 8 months received VGC once daily for 90 d post-transplant dosed according to donor/recipient (D/R) serostatus: high risk (D+/R-) received 900 mg (n = 12); moderate risk (D+/R+, D-/R+) received 450 mg (n = 60); and low risk (D-/R-) received no prophylaxis (n = 8). Thymoglobulin or basiliximab was used for induction, and mycophenolate mofetil, prednisone, and either tacrolimus or sirolimus for maintenance immunosuppression. Only six patients (7.5%) developed symptomatic CMV infection diagnosed by pp65 antigenemia, three in the high-risk (25%) and three in the moderate-risk (5%) group (p = 0.02). All patients were on tacrolimus for at least 3 months prior to diagnosis. There were no cases of tissue-invasive disease, resistance to treatment, or recurrence. D+/R- serostatus was the only significant independent predictor for CMV infection using multivariate analysis (odds ratio 10.5; p = 0.04). Thymoglobulin induction was not associated with CMV infection. None of 43 patients who were exposed to sirolimus for >30 d developed CMV infection, vs. six of 37 who were not (p = 0.006). We conclude that VGC dosed according to D/R serostatus provides safe and effective CMV prophylaxis in AA renal allograft 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

CMV, EBV, HHV6, and HHV7 infections after intestinal transplantation without specific antiviral prophylaxis

PURPOSE: To analyze the incidence and relevance of viral infections after intestinal transplantation (ITx) without specific antiviral prophylaxis. METHODS: Eleven patients (median age 34 years; range 26 to 58 years) who underwent ITx received no CMV/EBV prophylaxis but rather preemptive treatment. Viral monitoring for CMV or EBV polymerase chain reactions (PCR) in peripheral blood and graft biopsies, for HHV6-, and HHV7-PCR; for adeno-/rotavirus antigen and serology was performed based on clinical indications. RESULTS: Median time under risk was 19 months (range 2 to 39). CMV: The donor (D)-to-recipient (R) status prior to ITx was: D+/R+ (4); D+/R- (3); D-/R- (2); D-/R+ (2). Eight patients showed no positive CMV-PCR. Three episodes of tissue invasive CMV disease occurred in two patients. There were two asymptomatic CMV infections but no episodes of CMV disease. None of the R(-) recipients developed CMV infection or enteritis irrespective of the donor status. EBV: Four patients experienced six episodes of transient significant EBV-viremia. Two patients developed EBV enteritis concurrently with CMV enteritis during acute rejection. There were no PTLD. CMV and EBV enteritis only occurred during or immediately after steroid and OKT3 therapy. None of the patients developed significant HHV6 and HHV7 infection or viremia. There was one episode of adeno- and rotavirus enteritis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite witholding specific antiviral prophylaxis against CMV and EBV, we observed no such infections in 60% to 80% of patients. Donor-recipient matching regarding CMV was not predictive for the occurrence of CMV-related complications. HHV6 and HHV7 have not contributed to posttransplant morbidity.     

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.     

Lack of cytomegalovirus transmission after pancreatic islet transplantation

In spite of antiviral prophylaxis, the transmission rate of cytomegalovirus (CMV) after solid organ transplantation remains high. In contrast, CMV transmission has never been reported following pancreatic islet transplantation (PIT). Eleven (seven CMV seronegative, four CMV seropositive) recipients underwent a total of 26 PITs. Following PIT recipients were monitored clinically and tested monthly for CMV antigenemia. Valganciclovir was given to all patients for 100 days after each PIT. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months (median 14.5 months). Pancreatic islet grafts were procured from 18 CMV seropositive and 8 seronegative donors (69% and 31% of donors, respectively). In total there were 6 R+D+, 3 R+D-, 12 R-D+, and 5 R-D-PITs. No patient developed CMV antigenemia or symptoms consistent with CMV infection at any time following PIT. Routine posttransplant testing of PIT recipients demonstrated that neither CMV transmission nor CMV infection occurred after PIT.     

Prophylactic Versus Preemptive Oral Valganciclovir for the Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Adult Renal Transplant Recipients

Prophylaxis reduces cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, but is associated with increased costs and risks for side effects, viral resistance and late onset CMV disease. Preemptive therapy avoids drug costs but requires frequent monitoring and may not prevent complications of asymptomatic CMV replication. Kidney transplant recipients at risk for CMV (D+/R-, D+/R+, D-/R+) were randomized to prophylaxis (valganciclovir 900 mg q.d. for 100 days, n=49) or preemptive therapy (900 mg b.i.d. for 21 days, n=49) for CMV DNAemia (CMV DNA level>2000 copies/mL in >or=1 whole blood specimens by quantitative PCR) assessed weekly for 16 weeks and at 5, 6, 9 and 12 months. More patients in the preemptive group, 29 (59%) than in the prophylaxis group, 14 (29%) developed CMV DNAemia, p=0.004. Late onset of CMV DNAemia (>100 days after transplant) occurred in 11 (24%) randomized to prophylaxis, and none randomized to preemptive therapy. Symptomatic infection occurred in five patients, four (3 D+/R- and 1 D+/R+) in the prophylactic group and one (D+/R-) in the preemptive group. Peak CMV levels were highest in the D+/R- patients. Both strategies were effective in preventing symptomatic CMV. Overall costs were similar and insensitive to wide fluctuations in costs of either monitoring or drug.     

Preemptive Strategy for Ganciclovir Administration Against Cytomegalovirus in Liver Transplantation Recipients

In utilizing a preemptive strategy to minimize the occurrence of symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection following liver transplant, only patients with proven CMV activity by direct detection are treated. We applied the following preemptive strategy for CMV infection to 49 sequential liver transplant recipients between 1998 and 2001. Patients were monitored for CMV activity using CMV p65 antigen assay for the first 10 months of the study. Thereafter, we changed the detection method to a quantitative PCR for plasma CMV-DNA. All patients were monitored post transplant, weekly for the first 3 months and then monthly. Only patients with detected CMV activity were treated with ganciclovir. Patients were divided into four groups, based on donor (D) and recipient (R) CMV status. In seven out of 49 patients (14.3%) CMV activity was detected: four in group D+/R-, and three in group D-/R-. Five out of these seven patients had asymptomatic CMV infection. Symptomatic CMV infection developed only in two of these seven patients, to give total rate of 4.1% (2/49). All seven patients developed CMV IgG antibody. 'Transient' CMV replication detected by PCR in five patients in group D+/R+ was not defined as infection. No patients developed organ-invasive CMV disease. The cost of anti-CMV treatment using the preemptive strategy was $1000/patient/1st year. Using preemptive strategy, early detection of CMV infection was achieved, allowing timely treatment. The use of ganciclovir for CMV infection in only 4.3% of the patients should have a positive impact on minimizing the risk of ganciclovir-resistant virus, and should reduce the cost of CMV prevention strategies.     

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.     

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.     

CMV infections after two doses of daclizumab versus thymoglobulin in renal transplant patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil, steroids and delayed cyclosporine A.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major complication after renal transplantation and is involved in graft rejection. The anti-interleukin-2-receptor antibody daclizumab reduces the incidence of acute rejection without increasing the incidence of CMV infection. METHODS: This multicentre, randomized trial compared safety and efficacy, at 1 year, of two doses of daclizumab (54 patients, group D) with thymoglobulin (55 patients, group T) plus delayed cyclosporine (CsA), MMF (mycophenolate mofetil) and steroids in first cadaver kidney transplant patients. Primary criterion was CMV infection/syndrome/disease. D+/R- patients received oral ganciclovir prophylaxis for 90 days. RESULTS: Status for CMV was identical in the both groups. The incidence of CMV infection/syndrome/disease was 39% in group D versus 51% in group T (NS). Time to onset of CMV replication was delayed in group D (P = 0.015) and mean number of pp65-positive cells was lower at 4 and 6 months (P < 0.001). Incidence of symptomatic CMV episodes was not reduced in whole group D (5.6% versus 16.4%, NS), but lower in D+/R+ and D-/R+ patients without chemoprophylaxis, compared to group T (2.8% versus 21.6%, P = 0.028). Patient and graft survivals and incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Limited dosing regimen of daclizumab with MMF, steroids and delayed CsA introduction was safe and effective. The incidence of CMV infection was not significantly different, but without chemoprophylaxis, clinical manifestations and viral replication were reduced with this regimen.     

Predictive factors for cytomegalovirus infection after orthotopic liver transplantation using an ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction assay

The predictive factors for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in de novo liver transplant patients were determined at 3 months posttransplantation. We included all consecutive patients except those who died or who had lost their graft within 1 month posttransplant. We recorded both donor (D) and recipient (R) data. Immunosuppression utilized tacrolimus, steroids, with or without mycophenolate mofetil, and/or induction therapy with anti-CD25 monoclonal antibodies. CMV prophylaxis was administered only to those at high risk of CMV infection, namely, D+/R- patients. These cases received intravenous ganciclovir at 500 mg/d for the first 2 weeks followed by oral ganciclovir at 500 mg for the following 3 months. The median time to CMV infection was 1 month. The significant predictive factors for CMV infection were D/R CMV status, (P = .002): D+/R+ versus other patients (P = .01), D-/R- versus other patients (P = .002), D+ versus D- (P = .009). In addition infection was associated with the original liver disease (hepatitis C virus infection or alcohol-related cirrhosis; P = .03), R+ vs. R- (P = .03), donor age (<45 or >45 years; P = .01), lymphocyte count at M2 (< or >1300/mm(3); P = .02), hemoglobin levels at 1 and 3 months, and platelet and white blood cell counts at day 7. The independent predictive factors were recipient CMV sero-status (R+ vs R-; odds ratio = 10.2), donor age >45 years (odds ratio = 11.4) and lymphocyte count at M2 <1300/mm(3) (odds ratio = 7.33). This study showed that the major factors associated with CMV infection were recipient CMV status, donor age, and lymphocyte count.     

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.     

Sirolimus exposure during the early post-transplant period reduces the risk of CMV infection relative to tacrolimus in renal allograft recipients

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data regarding the role of individual maintenance immunosuppressive agents in the development of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. We examined the association between exposure to sirolimus (SRL) and risk of CMV infection after kidney transplantation when compared with tacrolimus (TCL). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of adult renal allograft recipients transplanted between 2001 and 2005 at our center. Patients received anti-lymphocyte antibody induction, and mycophenolate mofetil with either SRL or TCL +/- prednisone. D+/R- patients received valganciclovir 900 mg/d and CMV + patients 450 mg/d for three months. CMV infection was diagnosed with pp65 antigenemia testing prompted by clinical suspicion. RESULTS: A total of 14 Cases with CMV infection and 129 Controls were identified for primary analysis, and 11 D+/R- Cases and 19 D+/R- Controls for secondary analysis. The groups were comparable in both analyses, except for D+/R- serostatus in the primary analysis. All 14 Cases were on TCL for at least three months prior to diagnosis of CMV infection. In the primary analysis, zero Cases, but 30.2% and 34.9% of Controls (p = 0.009 and 0.004), and in secondary analysis, zero Cases, but 31.6% and 42.1% of Controls (p = 0.046 and 0.013), were on SRL at one and three months, respectively. In the primary analysis, zero Cases vs. 45 Controls (p = 0.004), and in secondary analysis, zero Cases vs. eight Controls (p = 0.013), were on SRL for at least three months early post-transplantation. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that SRL as a component of a multidrug immunosuppressive regimen decreases the risk of CMV infection after kidney transplantation when compared with TCL.     

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   

The impact of cytomegalovirus infection on seronegative recipients of seropositive donor kidneys versus seropositive recipients treated with cyclosporine-prednisone immunosuppression

To assess the impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in D+R- patients treated with cyclosporine (CsA)-prednisone immunosuppression, we compared the incidence of CMV infection, severity of disease, and the 1, 2, and 3-year actual graft and patient survival rates of CMV-infected D+R- patients with R+ patients from a group of 516 renal allograft recipients at our center. CMV infection occurred more frequently in 27/56 D+R- patients (48%) versus 111/376 R+ patients (29%) (P less than 0.01). The incidence of CMV was also significantly greater in D+R- versus R- patients receiving CAD grafts (59% vs. 32%, P less than 0.01) and first transplants (47% vs. 30%, P less than 0.05). There were no significant differences in CMV disease severity between the aggregate D+R- and R+ patient groups and when subgroups of these patients receiving cadaveric donor (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), first, or retransplant allografts were compared. The actual 1, 2, and 3-year graft survival rates for D+R- patients (68%, 58%, 68%) were not significantly different from rates in R+ patients (83%, 77%, 63%) with CMV infection. When the 1, 2, and 3-year actual graft survival rates in subgroups of D+R- and R+ patients were compared in CAD, LRD, and first and retransplants, there were no significant differences. The actual 1, 2, and 3-year patient survival rates were not significantly different between D+R- (89%, 92%, 100%) and R+ patients (94%, 91%, 86%) with CMV infection, nor were they different when CMV infected D+R- and R+ patients with CAD, LRD, first or retransplant grafts were compared. These data do not support the policy of denying a seropositive kidney to a seronegative recipient, since the severity of CMV disease and the impact of CMV infection is not significantly different comparing D+R- and R+ patients receiving CsA-prednisone immunosuppression.