Valganciclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy in cytomegalovirus-positive renal allograft recipients: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Transplantation. 2012;93:61-68. [PMID: 22094954 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0b013e318238dab3]

Direct and Indirect Effects of Cytomegalovirus-Induced γδ T Cells after Kidney Transplantation

Despite effective anti-viral therapies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) is still associated with direct (CMV disease) and indirect effects (rejection and poor graft survival) in kidney transplant recipients. Recently, an unconventional T cell population (collectively designated as Vδ2^neg γδ T cells) has been characterized during the anti-CMV immune response in all solid-organ and bone-marrow transplant recipients, neonates, and healthy people. These CMV-induced Vδ2^neg γδ T cells undergo a dramatic and stable expansion after CMV infection, in a conventional “adaptive” manner. Similarly, as CMV-specific CD8+ αβ T cells, they exhibit an effector/memory TEMRA phenotype and cytotoxic effector functions. Activation of Vδ2^neg γδ T cells by CMV-infected cells involves the γδ T cell receptor (TCR) and still ill-defined co-stimulatory molecules such as LFA-1. A multiple of Vδ2^neg γδ TCR ligands are apparently recognized on CMV-infected cells, the first one identified being the major histocompatibility complex-related molecule endothelial protein C receptor. A singularity of CMV-induced Vδ2^neg γδ T cells is to acquire CD16 expression and to exert an antibody-dependent cell-mediated inhibition on CMV replication, which is controlled by a specific cytokine microenvironment. Beyond the well-demonstrated direct anti-CMV effect of Vδ2^neg γδ T cells, unexpected indirect effects of these cells have been also observed in the context of kidney transplantation. CMV-induced Vδ2^neg γδ T cells have been involved in surveillance of malignancy subsequent to long-term immunosuppression. Moreover, CMV-induced CD16+ γδ T cells are cell effectors of antibody-mediated rejection of kidney transplants, and represent a new physiopathological contribution to the well-known association between CMV infection and poor graft survival. All these basic and clinical studies paved the road to the development of a future γδ T cell-based immunotherapy. In the meantime, γδ T cell monitoring should prove a valuable immunological biomarker in the management of CMV infection.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir in cytomegalovirus prevention in solid organ transplantation

Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection using antiviral prophylaxis or the pre-emptive therapy approach is an integral part of management of patients after solid organ transplantation. Regarding renal transplantation, valacyclovir is currently the only antiviral agent recommended for prophylaxis as an alternative to valganciclovir. This review article discusses studies documenting the efficacy and safety of valacyclovir prophylaxis as well as those comparing valacyclovir with other prophylactic regimens or with pre-emptive therapy. Also addressed are the economic aspects supporting the cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir prophylaxis and demonstrating lower costs compared with other cytomegalovirus preventive strategies.

Impact of Pharmacist Involvement in Early Identification and Enrollment in Patient Assistance Programs on CMV Outcomes in Transplantation

Background:

No data exist evaluating the utilization of patient assistance programs (PAPs) on cytomegalovirus (CMV)-related outcomes.

Objective:

To determine whether early identification and enrollment in PAPs can prevent CMV-related events.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of patients at risk of CMV reactivation who received kidney and/or pancreas transplants. Two groups were evaluated with patients receiving oral valganciclovir for CMV prophylaxis through enrollment in PAPs or oral acyclovir with preemptive CMV monitoring. Primary outcomes include the incidence of CMV infection. Secondary outcomes include a cost benefit analysis, incidence of rejection, patient/graft survival, and time to CMV infection.

Results:

There were 97 patients identified; valganciclovir through PAPs (n = 39) and preemptive CMV quantitative nucleic acid testing monitoring (n = 58). The incidence of CMV viremia was lower in the PAP group (12.8% vs 36.2%, respectively; P = .021). There were no significant differences in CMV syndrome/disease, acute rejection, graft loss, or death between the groups. The time to CMV infection was shorter in the preemptive group. Cost benefit analysis found that hiring a full time pharmacy employee for enrolling patients in PAPs was cost beneficial for the institution/health care system.

Conclusion:

Early identification and enrollment of patients in PAPs reduces the incidence of CMV viremia. Pharmacists play a crucial role in this process.

Prevention strategies for cytomegalovirus disease and long-term outcomes in the high-risk transplant patient (D+/R-): experience from the RESITRA-REIPI cohort

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-negative recipients of a graft from a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-) are at high risk of CMV disease. Current preventive strategies include universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive therapy (PT). However, the best strategy to prevent CMV disease and achieve better long-term outcomes remains a matter of debate.

METHODS

We analyzed the incidence of CMV disease and long-term outcomes including graft dysfunction and patient mortality at 5 years after transplantation with both preventive strategies. High-risk (D+/R-) kidney and liver transplant recipients from the RESITRA cohort were included.

RESULTS

Of 2410 kidney or liver transplant patients, 195 (8.3%) were D+/R-. The final cohort included 58 liver and 102 kidney recipients. UP was given in 92 patients and 68 received PT; 10.9% and 36.8% developed CMV disease, respectively (P < 0.01). The independent risk factors for CMV disease were PT strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-6.9), kidney transplantation (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4-9.9), and cyclosporine immunosuppression (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.7). PT strategy was also a risk factor for CMV disease in both liver transplantation (HR, 11.0; 95% CI, 1.2-98.7) and kidney transplantation (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0), independently. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was a risk factor for graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-9.0). Nevertheless, no significant differences were seen in either graft dysfunction or mortality between the 2 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the benefit of the UP strategy to prevent CMV disease in D+/R- liver or kidney transplant patients. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was associated with graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation.

[Non-antibiotic anti-infectious treatments in urology]

OBJECTIVE

To define the terms of use of pesticides, antifungal, antiviral and antiseptic treatments in urology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE for all these treatments used in urology. The molecules were classified by family. Modes of action, indications in urology and adverse effects have been detailed. Authorisation files were consulted and then complemented by a literature analysis.

RESULTS

Although parasitic or viral diseases are uncommon in urology, their specific treatment deserves a thorough knowledge of pesticide and antiviral molecules. Antifungal treatments are regularly used in urology with special features to know to improve the efficacy/safety ratio. Antiseptics are used daily in urology and a better understanding of these molecules allows better use.

CONCLUSION

Beyond antibiotics, antiviral, antiparasitic and antifungal deserve a thorough knowledge. Antiseptic although used daily have features little known.

Prevention of cytomegalovirus following solid organ transplantation: a literature review

CMV is the most common opportunistic infection affecting SOT recipients. Although current strategies to prevent both CMV infection and disease have been effective, CMV related complications continue to occur, particularly late-onset CMV disease. This literature review article examines the benefits and disadvantages of different prevention modalities, and presents emerging strategies to better prevent CMV in organ transplant recipients.

Impact of antiviral preventive strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

We assessed the impact of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy on the incidence and outcomes of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in a nationwide prospective cohort of solid organ transplant recipients. Risk factors associated with CMV disease and graft failure-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression models. One thousand two hundred thirty-nine patients transplanted from May 2008 until March 2011 were included; 466 (38%) patients received CMV prophylaxis and 522 (42%) patients were managed preemptively. Overall incidence of CMV disease was 6.05% and was linked to CMV serostatus (D+/R- vs. R+, hazard ratio [HR] 5.36 [95% CI 3.14-9.14], p < 0.001). No difference in the incidence of CMV disease was observed in patients receiving antiviral prophylaxis as compared to the preemptive approach (HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.63-2.17], p = 0.63). CMV disease was not associated with a lower graft failure-free survival (HR 1.27 [95% CI 0.64-2.53], p = 0.50). Nevertheless, patients followed by the preemptive approach had an inferior graft failure-free survival after a median of 1.05 years of follow-up (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.01-2.64], p = 0.044). The incidence of CMV disease in this cohort was low and not influenced by the preventive strategy used. However, patients on CMV prophylaxis were more likely to be free from graft failure.

Updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) continues to be one of the most common infections after solid-organ transplantation, resulting in significant morbidity, graft loss, and adverse outcomes. Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers but has been become more standardized by publication of consensus guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Section of The Transplantation Society. An international panel of experts was reconvened in October 2012 to revise and expand evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management, including diagnostics, immunology, prevention, treatment, drug resistance, and pediatric issues. The following report summarizes the recommendations.

Impaired direct priming of CD8 T cells by donor-derived cytomegalovirus following kidney transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection increases the risk of complications after renal transplantation, but the mechanisms controlling donor-derived infection are not adequately characterized. Here, we assessed the risk of clinically significant CMV disease in donor-seropositive, recipient-seropositive (D+R+) renal transplantation and examined recipients' CMV antigen-specific cellular immune responses primed directly by donor cells. In a retrospective cohort of 569 patients administered standardized basiliximab-tacrolimus-mycophenolate-corticosteroid immunosuppressive therapy, CMV disease rates increased in D+R+ serostatus pairings compared with D-R+ pairings (hazard ratio [HR], 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36 to 5.01; P=0.004) and associated with increased donor-recipient HLA mismatch in the D+R+ group (HR [per class 1 mismatch], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.82]; P=0.02). D+R+ and D+R- transplants in which the donor and recipient differentially expressed at least one HLA class I allele were followed prospectively from the time of transplantation. During the first year after transplantation, four of eight seropositive recipients and one of three seronegative recipients displayed peripheral blood CD8+ T cell responses to CMV presented by recipient-specific HLA. Notably, no recipients mounted responses to CMV presented by donor-specific HLA, despite the detection of CMV antigen expression in all seropositive donor organs examined (n=10), suggesting that the allograft of Class I HLA-mismatched seropositive donors is inaccessible to CD8+ T cell responses. Finally, pretransplant assays of anti-CMV cellular immunity predicted post-transplant CMV replication less accurately in D+R+ pairings than in D-R+ pairings, possibly reflecting in vitro assay specificity for recipient, rather than donor, HLA. These findings are relevant to the clinical management and immunologic understanding of donor-transmitted viral infection.

Pretransplant immediately early-1-specific T cell responses provide protection for CMV infection after kidney transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is still a major complication after kidney transplantation. Although cytotoxic CMV-specific T cells play a crucial role controlling CMV survival and replication, current pretransplant risk assessment for CMV infection is only based on donor/recipient (IgG)-serostatus. Here, we evaluated the usefulness of monitoring pre- and 6-month CMV-specific T cell responses against two dominant CMV antigens (IE-1 and pp65) and a CMV lysate, using an IFN-γ Elispot, for predicting the advent of CMV infection in two cohorts of 137 kidney transplant recipients either receiving routine prophylaxis (n = 39) or preemptive treatment (n = 98). Incidence of CMV antigenemia/disease within the prophylaxis and preemptive group was 28%/20% and 22%/12%, respectively. Patients developing CMV infection showed significantly lower anti-IE-1-specific T cell responses than those that did not in both groups (p < 0.05). In a ROC curve analysis, low pretransplant anti-IE-1-specific T cell responses predicted the risk of both primary and late-onset CMV infection with high sensitivity and specificity (AUC > 0.70). Furthermore, when using most sensitive and specific Elispot cut-off values, a higher than 80% and 90% sensitivity and negative predictive value was obtained, respectively. Monitoring IE-1-specific T cell responses before transplantation may be useful for predicting posttransplant risk of CMV infection, thus potentially guiding decision-making regarding CMV preventive treatment.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of prophylactic versus preemptive cytomegalovirus strategy in liver transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following solid organ transplantation (SOT). Two strategies, prophylactic, and preemptive have emerged for the prevention of CMV infection and disease after SOT. This retrospective chart review of two liver transplant cohorts: prophylactic and preemptive, compares the clinical impact of transitioning from prophylactic to preemptive strategy. The primary outcome is the incidence of CMV viremia at 3-and 6-months post-transplant. Secondary outcomes include: incidence of CMV tissue-invasive disease, acute cellular rejection, leukopenia and neutropenia, opportunistic infection rates, hospital readmission rates, and mortality at 3-and 6-months post-transplant. A total of 109 patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of CMV viremia was 4.9% and 50.0% (P < 0.001) in the prophylactic versus preemptive cohort, respectively, at 3 months post-transplant. The incidence of CMV viremia was 24.6% and 8.3% (P = 0.026) in the prophylactic versus preemptive cohort, respectively, at 6 months post-transplant. There were no statistical significant differences in the secondary outcomes between both cohorts. In conclusion, there is a statistical significant difference in time to onset of CMV viremia; however, the use of either prophylactic or preemptive strategy was not associated with significant negative clinical outcomes of CMV.

Management strategies for cytomegalovirus infection and disease in solid organ transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus is the most common viral pathogen that affects solid organ transplant recipients. It directly causes fever, myelosuppression, and tissue-invasive disease, and indirectly, it negatively impacts allograft and patient survival. Nucleic acid amplification testing is the preferred method to confirm the diagnosis of CMV infection. Prevention of CMV disease using antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy is critical in the management of transplant patients. Intravenous ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir are the first line drugs for antiviral treatment. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients.

Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of pre-emptive treatment with antiviral medications in preventing symptomatic CMV disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 16 January 2013) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pre-emptive treatment compared with placebo, no specific treatment or with antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors assessed the quality and extracted all data. Analyses used a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 eligible studies (1098 participants). Of these, six investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or treatment of CMV when disease occurred (standard care), eight looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, and one reported on oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment.Assessment of risk of bias identified that the processes reported for sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in only five and three studies, respectively. All studies were considered to be at low risk of attrition bias, and seven studies were considered to be at low risk of bias for selective reporting. Only one study reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel; no study reported blinding of outcome assessment.Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease (6 studies, 288 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80) but not acute rejection (3 studies, 185 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.12) or all-cause mortality (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30). Comparative studies of pre-emptive therapy versus prophylaxis showed no significant differences in preventing CMV disease between pre-emptive and prophylactic therapy (7 studies, 753 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.74) but there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 63%). Leucopenia was significantly less common with pre-emptive therapy compared with prophylaxis (6 studies, 729 participants: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90). Other adverse effects did not differ significantly or were not reported. There were no significant differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, graft loss, acute rejection and infections other than CMV.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few RCTs have evaluated the effects of pre-emptive therapy to prevent CMV disease. Pre-emptive therapy is effective compared with placebo or standard care. Despite the inclusion of five additional studies in this update, the efficacy of pre-emptive therapy compared with prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease remains unclear due to significant heterogeneity between studies. Additional head-to-head studies are required to determine the relative benefits and harms of pre-emptive therapy and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation: epidemiology, prevention, and treatment

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most important pathogens that infect solid organ transplant recipients. CMV is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in this population as a result of its numerous direct and indirect effects. Prevention strategies consist of preemptive therapy and antiviral prophylaxis, and the choice of which preventive approach to implement should be guided by advantages and drawbacks related to the population being managed. There are differences in the approaches to the laboratory diagnosis and treatment of CMV infection and disease depending on assay availability, clinical presentation, disease severity, and specific transplant populations. In this article, the authors aim to summarize recent publications and updates in the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients during the past year, including a brief review of future directions in the field.

Long-term outcomes of pre-emptive valganciclovir compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus in renal transplantation

Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) is essential in organ transplantation. The two main strategies are pre-emptive therapy, in which one screens for and treats asymptomatic CMV viremia, and universal antiviral prophylaxis. We compared these strategies and examined long-term outcomes in a randomized, open-label, single-center trial. We randomly assigned 70 renal transplant recipients (CMV-seropositive recipient or donor) to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (n=34) or pre-emptive valganciclovir for significant CMV viremia detected at predefined assessments through month 12 (n=36). Among the 55 patients who had a protocol biopsy specimen available at 3 years to allow assessment of the primary outcome, 9 (38%) of 24 patients in the prophylaxis group and 6 (19%) of 31 patients in the pre-emptive therapy group had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-8.43; P=0.22). The prophylaxis group had significantly higher intrarenal mRNA expression of genes involved in fibrogenesis. The occurrence of CMV disease was similar in both groups, but pre-emptive therapy improved 4-year graft survival (92% versus 74%; P=0.049) as a result of worse outcomes in patients with late-onset CMV viremia. In conclusion, compared with valacyclovir prophylaxis, pre-emptive valganciclovir therapy may lead to less severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and to significantly better graft survival.