Efficacy and safety of low-dose valganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in adult liver transplant recipients

Prevention and Management of CMV Infections after Liver Transplantation: Current Practice in German Transplant Centers

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity in human liver transplant recipients. Anti-CMV therapeutics can be used to prevent or treat CMV in liver transplant recipients, but their toxicity needs to be balanced against the benefits. The choice of prevention strategy (prophylaxis or preemptive treatment) depends on the donor/recipient sero-status but may vary between institutions. We conducted a series of consultations and roundtable discussions with German liver transplant center representatives. Based on 20 out of 22 centers, we herein summarize the current approaches to CMV prevention and treatment in the context of liver transplantation in Germany. In 90% of centers, transient prophylaxis with ganciclovir or valganciclovir was standard of care in high-risk (donor CMV positive, recipient CMV naive) settings, while preemptive therapy (based on CMV viremia detected during (bi) weekly PCR testing for circulating CMV-DNA) was preferred in moderate- and low-risk settings. Duration of prophylaxis or intense surveillance was 3-6 months. In the case of CMV infection, immunosuppression was adapted. In most centers, antiviral treatment was initiated based on PCR results (median threshold value of 1000 copies/mL) with or without symptoms. Therefore, German transplant centers report similar approaches to the prevention and management of CMV infection in liver transplantation.

Use of Viral Load as a Surrogate Marker in Clinical Studies of Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has been the standard endpoint for clinical trials in organ transplant recipients. Viral load may be a more relevant endpoint due to low frequency of disease. We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. We found several lines of evidence to support the validity of viral load as an appropriate surrogate end-point, including the following: (1) viral loads in CMV disease are significantly greater than in asymptomatic viremia (odds ratio, 9.3 95% confidence interval, 4.6-19.3); (2) kinetics of viral replication are strongly associated with progression to disease; (3) pooled incidence of CMV viremia and disease is significantly lower during prophylaxis compared with the full patient follow-up period (viremia incidence: 3.2% vs 34.3%; P < .001) (disease incidence: 1.1% vs 13.0%; P < .001); (4) treatment of viremia prevented disease; and (5) viral load decline correlated with symptom resolution. Based on the analysis, we conclude that CMV load is an appropriate surrogate endpoint for CMV trials in organ transplant recipients.

Low-dose valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in intermediate-risk liver transplantation recipients

Liver transplantation recipients (LTRs) who are seropositive for cytomegalovirus (CMV) (recipient seropositive [R+]) are at intermediate risk for CMV disease. A preventative strategy following transplant is considered standard of care. Current guidelines recommend high-dose valganciclovir (VGCV; 900 mg/day adjusted for renal function) for prophylaxis given limited data on the efficacy and safety of low-dose VGCV (450 mg/day adjusted for renal function). We describe our experience using low-dose VGCV prophylaxis for R+ LTRs at our institution. A single-center, retrospective study was conducted using a database of 364 LTRs over a 4-year period (2011-2014). Adult first-time R+ LTRs receiving low-dose VGCV prophylaxis were included. The primary endpoint was CMV disease at 1 year after transplant. Patients were compared with historical controls receiving high-dose VGCV prophylaxis. Secondary endpoints were biopsy-proven rejection and leukopenia on VGCV. With respect to leukopenia, patients receiving low-dose VGCV were compared with a group of D+R- patients from the database receiving high-dose VGCV. Univariate analyses were performed using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. A total of 200 R+ LTRs met inclusion criteria. Median age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-66 years), and 129 (65%) LTRs were male. Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 22 (IQR, 14-31), and 178 (89%) patients received deceased donor transplants. CMV disease occurred in only 9 (5%) patients, similar to rates in previous studies of LTRs receiving high-dose VGCV. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 18 (9%) patients. Patients received VGCV prophylaxis for a median of 3.4 (IQR, 3.1-4.3) months; 151 (76%) R+ LTRs receiving low-dose VGCV developed leukopenia. Premature VGCV discontinuation and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor use were infrequent and not significantly different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, low-dose VGCV was safe and effective for prevention of CMV disease in our cohort of 200 R+ LTR and should be considered as an option in future guidelines. Liver Transplantation 24 616-622 2018 AASLD.

Two strategies for prevention of cytomegalovirus infections after liver transplantation

AIM: To analyze differences in patients’ clinical course, we compared two regimes of either preemptive therapy or prophylaxis after liver transplantation.

METHODS: This retrospective study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the University of Leipzig. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis with valganciclovir hydrochloride for liver transplant recipients was replaced by a preemptive strategy in October 2009. We retrospectively compared liver transplant recipients 2 years before and after October 2009. During the first period, all patients received valganciclovir daily. During the second period all patients included in the analysis were treated following a preemptive strategy. Outcomes included one year survival and therapeutic intervention due to CMV viremia or infection.

RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2010 n = 226 patients underwent liver transplantation in our center. n = 55 patients were D⁺/R^- high risk recipients and were excluded from further analysis. A further 43 patients had to be excluded since CMV prophylaxis/preemptive strategy was not followed although there was no clinical reason for the deviation. Of the remaining 128 patients whose data were analyzed, 60 received prophylaxis and 68 were treated following a preemptive strategy. The difference in overall mortality was not significant, nor was it significant for one-year mortality where it was 10% (95%CI: 8%-28%, P = 0.31) higher for the preemptive group. No significant differences in blood count abnormalities or the incidence of sepsis and infections were observed other than CMV. In total, 19 patients (14.7%) received ganciclovir due to CMV viremia and/or infections. Patients who were treated according to the preemptive algorithm had a significantly higher rate risk of therapeutic intervention with ganciclovir [n = 16 (23.5%) vs n = 3 (4.9%), P = 0.003)].

CONCLUSION: These data suggest that CMV prophylaxis is superior to a preemptive strategy in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

Population pharmacokinetics of valganciclovir prophylaxis in paediatric and adult solid organ transplant recipients

AIM

Our aims were to quantify ganciclovir pharmacokinetics in paediatric and adult kidney, liver and lung transplant patients taking a range of valganciclovir doses to prevent herpes virus infections, including a 450 mg regimen, and to identify sources of pharmacokinetic variability.

METHOD

Plasma samples were collected at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks post-transplant and at 4, 6, 8 and 12 months post-transplant in subjects prescribed longer courses. Ganciclovir was measured by liquid chromatography/ultraviolet detection. Non-linear mixed effects modelling was used to analyze the concentration-time data and evaluate demographic and transplant-related covariates.

RESULTS

A two compartment model with first order absorption best described the data. Given the range of body sizes, clearance and volume of distribution terms were scaled using standard weight-based allometric exponents. Creatinine clearance was included on apparent oral clearance. Final estimates in a standard 70 kg individual for apparent oral clearance, central volume of distribution, intercompartmental clearance and peripheral volume of distribution were 14.5 l h(-1) , 87.5 l, 4.80 l h(-1) and 42.6 l, respectively. The median terminal half-life for kidney, liver and lung transplant recipients was 9.4, 9.5 and 8.2 h, respectively. Median exposure (i.e. AUC(0,∞) in subjects taking valganciclovir 900 mg or 450 mg once daily was 57.4 and 34.3 μg ml(-1)  h, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Allometric scaling allowed simultaneous analysis of data from children and adults. Ganciclovir pharmacokinetics were similar among kidney, liver and lung transplant recipients. Ganciclovir exposure after valganciclovir 450 mg once daily may be suboptimal in some individuals and requires evaluation along with virologic outcomes data.

Universal prophylaxis or preemptive strategy for cytomegalovirus disease after liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We systematically reviewed and meta-analyze the efficacy of universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive (PE) strategies (using ganciclovir or valganciclovir) in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease (CMD) among liver transplant recipients (LTRs). We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database till December 2013. Studies that assessed UP or PE for preventing CMD in LTRs were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was CMD, secondary outcomes being acute cellular rejection (ACR), graft loss (GL) and mortality. Due to the heterogeneity of comparative studies, an indirect comparison was performed. Pooled incidence rates with 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated for each outcome using a random-effects model. Thirty-two studies involving 2456 LTRs were included. The majority of the studies were of low risk of bias. Irrespective of donor/recipient CMV sero-status, CMD was 10% with UP (95% CI: 6-14; I(2)  = 87%; 16 studies, n = 1581) and 7% with PE (95% CI: 3-10; I(2)  = 84%; 16 studies, n = 875) (mean difference 2.6; 95% CI: -3.25 to 8.45, p = 0.34). Likewise, ACR and mortality were similar with the two strategies. However, GL was significantly lower in the UP group, regardless of donor/recipient sero-status. In indirect comparison, the incidence of CMD, ACR and mortality in LTRs were similar with two strategies. Trials comparing the two strategies directly are needed.

Cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients: Updates on clinical management

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication after liver transplantation, and it is associated with multiple direct and indirect effects. Management of CMV infection and disease has evolved over the years, and clinical guidelines have been recently updated. Universal antiviral prophylaxis and a pre-emptive treatment strategy are options for prevention. A currently-recruiting randomized clinical trial is comparing the efficacy and safety of the two prevention strategies in the highest risk D+R- liver recipients. Drug-resistant CMV infection remains uncommon but is now increasing in incidence. This highlights the currently limited therapeutic options, and the need for novel drug discoveries. Immunotherapy and antiviral drugs with novel mechanisms of action are being investigated, including letermovir (AIC246) and brincidofovir (CMX001). This article reviews the current state of CMV management after liver transplantation, including the updated practice guidelines, and summarizes the data on investigational drugs and vaccines in clinical development.

Infections of the Liver

The portal vein carries blood from the gastrointestinal tract to the liver and in so doing carries microbes as well. The liver may therefore be involved in infections with a myriad number of microbial organisms. While some of these infections most commonly occur in the immunocompromised host, others affect the immune competence. Hepatic infections may be primary in nature or secondary, as part of systemic or contagious disease. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the various infections of the liver in the pediatric patient.

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.

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.

Preemptive therapy prevents cytomegalovirus end-organ disease in treatment-naïve patients with advanced HIV-1 infection in the HAART era

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of preemptive therapy against cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains unknown in treatment-naïve patients with advanced HIV-1 infection in the HAART era.

METHODS

The subjects of this single-center observation study were 126 treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected patients with positive CMV viremia between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006. Inclusion criteria were age more than 17 years, CD4 count less than 100/μl, plasma CMV DNA positive, never having received antiretroviral therapy (ART) and no CMV end-organ disease (EOD) at first visit. The incidence of CMV-EOD was compared in patients with and without preemptive therapy against CMV-EOD. The effects of the CMV preemptive therapy were estimated in uni- and multivariate Cox hazards models.

RESULTS

CMV-EOD was diagnosed in 30 of the 96 patients of the non-preemptive therapy group (31%, 230.3 per 1000 person-years), compared with 3 of the 30 patients of the preemptive therapy group (10%, 60.9 per 1000 person-years). Univariate (HR = 0.286; 95%CI, 0.087-0.939; p = 0.039) and multivariate (adjusted HR = 0.170; 95%CI, 0.049-0.602; p = 0.005) analyses confirmed that CMV-EOD is significantly prevented by CMV preemptive therapy. Multivariate analysis showed that plasma CMV DNA level correlated significantly with CMV-EOD (per log10/ml, adjusted HR = 1.941; 95%CI, 1.266-2.975; p = 0.002). Among the 30 patients on preemptive therapy, 7 (23.3%) developed grade 3-4 leukopenia. The mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.193, Log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that preemptive therapy lowers the incidence of CMV-EOD by almost 25%. Preemptive therapy for treatment-naïve patients with CMV viremia is effective, although monitoring of potential treatment-related side effects is required.

Risk of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients on valganciclovir prophylaxis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Valganciclovir (VGC) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 as cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis except for liver transplant recipients because of their high incidence of CMV disease with this drug. However, surveys have shown its common off-label use for CMV prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. We aimed to evaluate the risk of CMV disease with VGC prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. All studies that evaluated liver transplant recipients and used VGC (900 or 450 mg daily) for the prevention of CMV disease were included. Five controlled studies (n = 483) were pooled with a random effects model; five single-arm studies (n = 380) were pooled for the prevalence rate of CMV disease. The risk of CMV disease with VGC versus ganciclovir was 1.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-3.29, P = 0.05, I(2) = 0%]. For high-risk (donor-positive/recipient-negative) patients, the risk of CMV disease was 1.96 (95% CI = 1.05-3.67, P = 0.035, I(2) = 0%). The risk of CMV disease remained significant with 900 mg of VGC daily (P = 0.04) but not with 450 mg of VGC daily (P = 0.76). The risk of leukopenia with VGC was 1.87 (95% CI = 1.03-3.37, P = 0.04, I(2) = 0%). In single-arm trials, the overall CMV disease rate was 12% (95% CI = 9%-16%, P < 0.001), and the rate for high-risk patients was 20% (95% CI = 10%-38%, P = 0.002). In conclusion, 900 mg of VGC daily may not be safe as CMV prophylaxis in high-risk liver transplant recipients because of the significant 2-fold increase in the risk of CMV disease and the 1.9-fold increase in the risk of leukopenia. Alternative CMV prophylaxis should be used for liver transplant recipients.

The value of pre-emptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections are among the most common infections following liver transplantation. The main preventive methods for CMV infections are universal prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy. In our study, we adopted a pre-emptive strategy in a higth-risk group of donor CMV-positive (D+)/recipient CMV-negative (R-) casses. We investigated whether this strategy was safe and effective to prevent CMV disease.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-nine liver transplantation recipients who underwent over a 15-year period were retrospectively analyzed after follow-up for at least 6 months (mean, 63 months). Weekly quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) measurements were performed to detect viral DNA. No CMV drug prophylaxis was given: antiviral CMV therapy was initiated when the PCR for CMV-DNA was >400 copies/mL.

RESULTS

Fifty-one of 159 liver transplant recipients enrolled in the study received antiviral therapy. High-risk patients (D+/R-) developed CMV infections significantly more often than D-/R- serostatus (P = .005). CMV disease was diagnosed in 12% of CMV-positive patients. Independent of serostatus in 14 cases (27.5%) virological recurrence of CMV infection occurred after primary treatment. Survival analysis showed no significant difference between patients with versus without CMV infection (P = .950). No relationship could be found between transplant rejection and CMV infection (P = .349).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that a pre-emptive strategy to prevent CMV disease was possible, even among the serological high-risk group. Only 12% of cases with CMV infection went on to manifest CMV disease with organ involvement. Survival curves were similar among patients with versus without CMV infections.

Immunosuppression induction with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin with or without rituximab in 1000 liver transplant patients with long-term follow-up

Rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG)-based immunosuppression induction is being increasingly used in liver transplantation (LT) in conjunction with steroid-free protocols to delay the initiation of calcineurin inhibitors. This study reports a single-center comparison of transplant outcomes and complications in 3 immunosuppression eras. Data were obtained retrospectively from a center research database, and the analysis included LT patients from 2001 to 2008. The immunosuppression consisted of rATG induction in 3 doses (6 mg/kg in all): (1) the first dose was administered perioperatively [the rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin in the operating room (rATG-OR) era]; (2) the first dose was delayed until 48 hours after transplantation [the rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin after a delay (rATG-D) era]; or (3) the first dose was delayed until 48 hours after transplantation, and a single dose of rituximab was added 72 hours after transplantation [the rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin after a delay plus rituximab (rATG-D-Ritux) era]. The initial maintenance immunosuppression was tacrolimus monotherapy, which was started on postoperative day 2. There were 166 patients (16%) in the rATG-OR era, 259 patients (26%) in the rATG-D era, and 588 patients (58%) in the rATG-D-Ritux era (1013 patients in all). Demographically, the latter eras were characterized by higher recipient and donor ages; greater percentages of liver-kidney transplants, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donation after cardiac death (DCD), and imported organs; and shorter graft ischemia times. There were no significant differences between the 3 immunosuppression groups in unadjusted patient survival 3 and 5 years after transplantation (80% and 75% for the rATG-OR era, 75% and 67% for the rATG-D era, and 79% and 71% for the rATG-D-Ritux era, P = 0.15). The 5-year survival rates for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HCC were 65% and 68%, respectively. The factors included in the Cox regression model for patient death included the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.03, P = 0.001], HCV (HR = 1.28, P = 0.04), donor age (HR = 1.01, P = 0.001), recipient age (HR = 1.01, P = 0.05), and DCD (HR = 1.55, P = 0.11). rATG-based induction immunosuppression can be safely used in adult LT recipients with excellent survival and low rejection rates and without increases in immunosuppression-related side effects.

Viral factors influencing the outcome of human cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains the leading viral cause of disease following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) despite the availability of antiviral agents for prophylaxis and therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the viral factors that influence the outcome of CMV infection following valganciclovir prophylaxis or laboratory-guided preemptive therapy in OLT recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

The value of valganciclovir prophylaxis and laboratory-guided preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV infection and disease was observed in 64 OLT recipients. Prophylaxis was given to all CMV seronegative recipients receiving a liver from a seropositive donor (D+R-; n=15), and all other recipients were randomised to receive either prophylaxis (n=24) or laboratory-guided preemptive therapy (n=25). Recipients were monitored for CMV DNAemia, viral load, emergence of antiviral resistant strains and co-infections.

RESULTS

CMV end-organ disease and antiviral resistant strains only occurred in D+R- recipients despite the use of prophylaxis in these patients. The D+R- recipients commencing prophylaxis immediately following transplantation had better outcomes compared to those for whom prophylaxis was delayed due to renal impairment. Prophylaxis reduced the incidence of CMV DNAemia, persistent infection, and high viral loads for CMV seropositive (D-R+and D+R+) recipients, but laboratory-guided preemptive therapy effectively controlled CMV infection and prevented disease in these OLT recipients.

CONCLUSION

Delaying the commencement of valganciclovir prophylaxis may be associated with worse outcomes for high-risk OLT recipients. Laboratory-guided pre-emptive therapy remains an alternative approach for seropositive recipients at lower risk of CMV disease.

24 weeks of valganciclovir prophylaxis in children after renal transplantation: a 4-year experience

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common opportunistic infection after solid-organ transplant. Valganciclovir prophylaxis significantly reduces disease, but limited data are available on its use in children. Recently, an increase in delayed-onset CMV disease has been noted with some arguing that longer prophylaxis may decrease late-onset disease.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective analysis of pediatric renal transplant patients receiving 24 weeks valganciclovir prophylaxis (15 mg/kg/day, maximum 900 mg/day) from January 2004 to December 2008, aiming to measure the incidence of CMV disease and toxicity of valganciclovir.

RESULTS

We enrolled 111 patients, 60% males, 46% African Americans, and median age at transplant 14.5 years (range 1.4-20.4 years). Sixty-nine percent of donors and 44% of recipients were seropositive pretransplant. Median duration of valganciclovir use was 5.9 months (range 0.5-24 months). CMV viremia and disease occurred in 27% and 4.5%, respectively. All patients with disease presented after prophylaxis ended and all were D+/R-. Thymoglobulin use (P = 0.04) and positive donor CMV status (P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of CMV viremia. Twenty-four percent had hematologic toxicity directly associated with valganciclovir.

CONCLUSIONS

Valganciclovir use in children was effective as prophylaxis against CMV disease; no children at our institution developed disease while on therapy. Our regimen of 24 weeks of prophylaxis was associated with a lower rate of late-onset disease than previous reports with 12-week regimens. Further controlled studies should be considered to compare longer versus shorter periods of prophylaxis and dose reductions and their impact on prevention of late-onset disease, resistance, cost, and toxicity.

Effectiveness of valganciclovir 900 mg versus 450 mg for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in transplantation: direct and indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

valganciclovir (VGC) 900 mg is approved for CMV prophylaxis, but it has been associated with 10%-40% leucopenia rate. We hypothesize that VGC 450 mg daily may be as effective as and safer than 900 mg daily.

METHODS

studies evaluating valganciclovir 900 mg and 450 mg daily against controls were evaluated. Direct comparisons were performed by random-effects models and indirect comparisons by the Bucher method.

RESULTS

twelve trials with VGC 900 mg (1543 patients) and 8 trials with VGC 450 mg (1531 patients) were included. The risk of CMV disease with VGC 900 mg versus controls was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64-1.76; P = .81; I2=29%) and with VGC 450 mg vs controls .77 (95%CI, .49-1.18; P = .23; I2=24%). The risk of leucopenia was 5.24 (2.09-13.15; P = .0004; I2=44%) for VGC 900 mg versus controls and 1.58 (.96-2.61; P = .07; I2=36%) for VGC 450 mg versus controls; the risk for acute allograft rejection was 1.71 (.45, -6.50; P = .43) for VGC 900 mg and .80 (.50-1.28; P = .34) for VGC 450 mg. Adjusted indirect comparison between VGC 900 mg and VGC 450mg: the risk for CMV disease was not significantly different: odds ratio (OR), 1.38 (.84-2.25); P = .19; the risk of leucopenia was significantly increased with VGC 900 mg: 3.32 (1.76-6.26); P = .0002; and the risk of rejection was significantly increased with VGC 900 mg: 2.56 (1.50-4.53); P = .0005. Results remained consistent after adjustments by allograft, CMV control strategy, and immunosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

valganciclovir 900 mg showed no superiority efficacy compared to controls (ganciclovir or preemptive) and equivalent efficacy to VGC 450 mg (statistical power: 94% and 97%, respectively) for CMV universal prophylaxis.VGC 900 mg was significantly associated with 3 times increase in the risk of leucopenia and 2 times increase in the risk of rejection compared with VGC 450 mg.

Valganciclovir is an effective prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality among solid organ transplant recipients. Prophylaxis using valganciclovir (VGCV) in orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and its use is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of VGCV in CMV prophylaxis in OLT recipients.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective, single-centre study including all OLT procedures performed during 2005-2008. Patients with early death (at ≤ 30 days), without CMV serology or prophylaxis, or with follow-up of <1 year were excluded.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of CMV disease was 6% (n= 9). The ganciclovir (GCV) and VGCV groups had similar incidences of CMV disease (4.6% vs. 7.0%; P= 0.4) and similar distributions of disease presentation (CMV syndrome vs. tissue-invasive CMV; P= 0.4). Incidences of CMV infection, as well as disease presentation, were similar between the high-risk (CMV D+/R-) and non-high-risk groups (P= 0.16). Although acute cellular rejection occurred more frequently in patients who developed CMV disease (P= 0.005), overall survival in these patients did not differ from that in patients who did not develop CMV infection (P= 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Valganciclovir is an effective antiviral for the prevention of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients. Our data support its use in high-risk OLT patients.

Immunohematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Cape Town: a ten-year outcome analysis in adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Immunohematopoietic stem cell transplantation has curative potential in selected hematologic disorders. Stem cell transplantation was introduced into South Africa in 1970 as a structured experimental and clinical program. In this report, we summarize the demography and outcome by disease category, gender, and type of procedure in patients older than 18 years of age who were seen from April 1995 to December 2002.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 247 individuals over 18 years of age for whom complete data were available. These patients received grafts mostly from peripheral blood with the appropriate stem cell population recovered by apheresis.

RESULTS

Patient ages ranged from 20 to 65 years with a median age of 42 years. There were 101 females and 146 males. There were no withdrawals and 63% survived to the end of the study. At 96 months of follow-up, a stable plateau was reached for each disease category. Median survival was 3.3 years (n=6, 14.6%) for acute lymphoblastic anemia, 3.1 years (n=44, 18%) for acute myeloid leukemia, 2.8 years (n=47, 19%) for chronic granulocytic leukemia, 2.8 years (n=71, 29%) for lymphoma, 1.5 years (n=23, 9%) for myeloma, 1.43 years (n=10, 4%) for aplasia, and 1.4 years (n=38, 15%) for a miscellaneous group comprising less than 10 examples each. Multivariate analysis showed that only diagnosis and age had a significant impact on survival, but these two variables might be interrelated. There was no significant difference in outcome by source of graft.

CONCLUSION

The results confirm that procedures carried out in a properly constituted and dedicated unit, which meets established criteria and strictly observes treatment protocols, generate results comparable to those in a First World referral center. Low rates of transplant-related mortality, rejection and graft-versus-host disease are confirmed, but the benefits cannot be extrapolated outside of academically oriented and supervised facilities.

The efficacy and safety of valganciclovir vs. oral ganciclovir in the prevention of symptomatic CMV infection in children after solid organ transplantation

Routine prophylaxis for CMV with valganciclovir is common in adult recipients but data to support its use in children are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir vs. ganciclovir in a pediatric cohort. We performed a retrospective analysis of 92 children after KTx and/or LTx. All children have received IV ganciclovir for two wk, and then oral ganciclovir (TID; n = 41) before 2004, or valganciclovir (OD; n = 51) thereafter. Treatment was given for three months in R+/D+ or R+/D- recipients and for six months in R-/D+. Patients were followed for one yr post transplant. Both groups were comparable in their demographic and transplant-related history. Symptomatic CMV infection/disease developed in 13.7% vs. 19.5% of valganciclovir and ganciclovir groups, respectively (P-NS). Time-to-onset of CMV infection was comparable in both groups (P-NS); rates of acute allograft rejection were similar in both groups (3.9% vs. 9.8%). Risk factors for CMV infection included young age, serostatus of R-/D+, and allograft from cadaver donor. No significant side effects were noted in both groups. As in adults, valganciclovir appears to be as efficacious and safe as oral ganciclovir. Valganciclovir should be considered as a possible prophylactic treatment for CMV in pediatric recipients of KTx or LTx.

Increased incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in high-risk liver transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir prophylaxis versus ganciclovir prophylaxis

Optimal measures for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in high-risk orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) patients are unknown. The charts of high-risk OLT recipients with 12 months of follow-up who were transplanted over a 44-month period were reviewed. The incidence of CMV disease in CMV-seropositive donor/CMV-seronegative recipient patients receiving valganciclovir or ganciclovir prophylaxis was compared. Sixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria and were treated with 1 of 3 prophylactic regimens: valganciclovir (900 mg daily; 27 patients), oral ganciclovir (1000 mg every 8 hours; 17 patients), or intravenous ganciclovir (6 mg/kg daily; 22 patients). Eight CMV cases occurred, all after completion of the prophylaxis. The combined incidence of CMV disease with intravenous and oral ganciclovir was lower than the incidence in valganciclovir recipients (P = 0.056; relative risk, 4.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-19.87). CMV disease occurred in 22.2% of valganciclovir recipients, 4.5% of intravenous ganciclovir recipients, and 5.9% of oral ganciclovir recipients. In conclusion, late-onset CMV disease occurred more frequently among high-risk liver transplant recipients treated with valganciclovir prophylaxis. The 4-fold higher incidence of CMV disease in our study supports the avoidance of valganciclovir for prophylaxis in high-risk OLT patients. Liver Transpl 15:963-967, 2009. (c) 2009 AASLD.

Oral ganciclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in high-risk liver transplant recipients

This retrospective review compared oral valganciclovir (VGCV) 450 mg daily for 6 months versus oral ganciclovir (GCV) 1000 mg 3 times daily for 3 months in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients.We evaluated all CMV donor positive-recipient negative liver transplant recipients managed at University Health System in San Antonio,Texas from August 1996 to September 2006. CMV disease was confirmed by polymerase chain-reaction or antigenemia assay, and CMV invasive disease by tissue biopsy. Patient demographics, laboratory results, complications, and therapies were collected via retrospective chart review. Patients < 18 years of age or those who died during transplant admission were excluded. Primary endpoints included incidence, onset, and severity of CMV disease up to 1 year post transplant. Data collection also included patient demographics, immunosuppression, CMV treatment regimens, and relevant lab results. A total of 64 patients (43 VGCV and 21 GCV) were identified. Four patients developed CMV disease:VGCV (3/43,7%) versus GCV (1/21, 5%) (P=1.0), with 1 VGCV patient experiencing tissue-invasive CMV. In all cases, onset of CMV disease occurred after prophylaxis was discontinued. Onset occurred at 24, 27, and 45 weeks post transplant in the VGCVgroup, and at 26 weeks in the 1 patient on GCV. Four patients received rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induction; 1 patient received rATG and developed CMV disease, with no statistical difference compared with the 3 remaining patients who received rATG but did not develop CMV disease (P=0.09). No difference was found in incidence of CMV disease between patients who received GCV and those who received VGCV at our institution.

CMV infection, diagnosis and antiviral strategies after liver transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant pathogen complicating the post-transplant course of organ recipients. In liver transplant patients, the febrile clinical illness caused by CMV may be associated with end-organ disease, such as hepatitis or infection of the gastrointestinal tract. In addition to direct effects, CMV may have indirect effects including the risk of other infections or graft rejection. Recently, major advances in the management of CMV infection have been achieved through the development of new diagnostic techniques and antiviral strategies to prevent CMV disease. Quantitative nucleic acid testing to monitor viral load is now commonly used to diagnose and guide the treatment of CMV infections. The standardization of the testing, however, needs to be improved. There are two main strategies to prevent CMV disease after liver transplantation: prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy. Both strategies are effective, but also have disadvantages. The disadvantages of prophylaxis include prolonged drug exposure, the development of resistance and, most of all, the development of delayed and late-onset CMV disease. On the other hand, the pre-emptive strategy is based on frequent laboratory monitoring of viral loads, and some patients may develop symptomatic infection before the diagnosis of CMV. This overview summarizes the current status of CMV in liver transplantation.

Immunocompromised hosts: perspectives in the treatment and prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease in solid-organ transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important complication of solid-organ transplantation. The availability of potent antiviral therapies has decreased the incidence of CMV disease among solid-organ transplant recipients but has also led to challenges, including ganciclovir resistance, late-onset CMV disease, and uncertainty about the optimal duration of prophylaxis or therapy for CMV disease. Specific therapies and management of CMV resistance will be addressed here. The best approach for CMV disease in solid-organ transplant recipients is prevention, but which strategy--prophylaxis or preemptive therapy--is optimal remains debatable. Ganciclovir and valganciclovir remain the best options for prevention and treatment of CMV disease in solid-organ transplant recipients, but they are costly and associated with toxicity. Foscarnet and cidofovir, indicated for the treatment of patients who fail to respond to ganciclovir, are less attractive alternatives because of renal toxicity. Therefore, new therapeutic agents for CMV and an immunogenic, safe CMV vaccine are critically needed.

Valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prevention in solid organ transplant patients: an evidence-based reassessment of safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Several anti-viral drugs have demonstrated efficacy in preventing Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in solid organ transplant (SOT) patients. The recently approved valganciclovir is the most commonly used and most expensive drug for CMV prevention. The safety and efficacy data have been drawn from a single trial. We hypothesized that valganciclovir may not be as safe as nor more effective than other therapies for CMV prevention.

METHODS

All experimental and analytical studies that compared valganciclovir with other therapies for prevention of CMV infection after SOT were selected. Based on meta-analytic and multivariate regression methodologies we critically analyzed all available evidence.

FINDINGS

Nine studies were included (N = 1,831). In trials comparing valganciclovir with ganciclovir, the risk for CMV disease is 0.98 (95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) 0.67 to 1.43; P = 0.92; I(2) = 0%). Valganciclovir was significantly associated with the risk of absolute neutropenia (<1,500/mm(3)) compared with all therapies (Odds Ratio (OR) 3.63 95%CI 1.75 to 7.53; P = 0.001; I(2) = 0%); with ganciclovir only (OR 2.88, 95%CI 1.27 to 6.53; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%); or with non-ganciclovir therapies (OR 8.30, 95%CI 1.51 to 45.58; P = 0.01; I(2) = 10%). For a neutropenia cut-off of <1,000/mm(3), the risk remained elevated (OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.67; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%). For every 24 patients who receive valganciclovir prophylaxis, one more will develop neutropenia compared to other therapies. The risk of late-onset CMV disease with valganciclovir was similar to ganciclovir and higher than those with non-ganciclovir therapies (OR 8.95, 95%CI 1.07 to 74.83; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%]. One more patient will develop late-onset CMV disease for every 25 who receive valganciclovir compared to treatment with non-ganciclovir therapies. The risk of CMV tissue-invasive disease in liver recipients receiving valganciclovir was 4.5 times the risk seen with ganciclovir [95%CI 1.00 to 20.14] (p = 0.04). All results remained consistent across different study designs, valganciclovir doses, and CMV serostatus.

CONCLUSIONS

Valganciclovir shows no superior efficacy and significantly higher risk of absolute neutropenia, CMV late-onset disease, and CMV tissue-invasive disease compared to other standard therapies. Due to the availability of efficacious, safer, and lower cost drugs (high-dose acyclovir, valacyclovir, ganciclovir), our results do not favor the use of valganciclovir as a first-line agent for CMV preemptive or universal prophylaxis in SOT patients.

Prevention of posttransplant cytomegalovirus disease and related outcomes with valganciclovir: a systematic review

The precise impact of valganciclovir as preventive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is not fully defined. Data from studies using valganciclovir as preemptive therapy or prophylaxis for CMV in SOT recipients were synthesized for descriptive analysis. CMV disease occurred in 2.6% and 9.9% of the patients receiving valganciclovir as preemptive therapy and prophylaxis, respectively. Although the incidence of early-onset (<or=90 days posttransplant) CMV disease was only 0.8% and 1.2% in all patients and R-/D+ patients receiving valganciclovir prophylaxis, the incidence of late-onset (>90 days posttransplant) CMV disease rose up to 8.9% and 17.7% in the prophylactic group, respectively. On the contrary, no patients developed late-onset CMV disease in preemptive group. Both approaches with valganciclovir have successfully decreased CMV disease in SOT recipients. Late-onset CMV disease is a complication observed uniquely with valganciclovir prophylaxis, particularly in R-/D+ patients, but not with preemptive therapy.

Maribavir: a new oral anti-cytomegalovirus drug

Prophylactic drug therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in stem cell and solid organ transplant recipients is effective and simple to implement, with oral ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir as the primary agents. The main problems with the ganciclovir derivatives are myelotoxicity and development of resistance. The new antiviral drug, maribavir, in Phase III clinical trials of CMV prophylaxis after stem cell and liver transplantation, works through a mechanism distinct from that of ganciclovir and shows no myelotoxicity or cross-resistance. The primary toxicity is headache and taste disturbance. If the clinical trials are effective, it is expected that maribavir will be available in 2009. The availability of a new antiviral agent will help in the control of the persistent bane of transplant care.

A survey of CMV prevention strategies after liver transplantation

The degree of variability in the use of CMV prevention strategies and choice of antiviral regimens among LT centers has not been previously investigated. An electronic survey on current CMV prevention strategies was sent to all US and Canadian LT centers. A total of 58 (53%) centers completed the survey. Most use CMV PCR for screening or diagnosis. Prophylaxis was the most common prevention strategy for all donor/recipient subtypes except D-/R- who often receive no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis was usually given for 3 months after LT with valganciclovir the most frequently used agent. In the small percentage of centers utilizing the preemptive approach, monitoring for CMV was typically performed with PCR for 3 months and valganciclovir was most frequently used for treatment of detectable CMV viremia. In conclusion, the majority of LT centers utilize CMV prophylaxis over other strategies. Valganciclovir is the most commonly used agent for both antiviral prophylaxis and treatment of CMV viremia in the preemptive approach.

Prophylaxis and treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of solid organ transplants: current approach and future challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cytomegalovirus infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in solid-organ transplant recipients, in terms of cytomegalovirus disease itself and the associated outcomes of organ rejection and death. This review focuses on recent literature concerning prevention and treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two major strategies for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients - preemptive and prophylactic treatment - are reviewed. Both strategies result in a lower incidence of cytomegalovirus disease when compared to a 'wait and treat' approach, and are generally considered cost-effective. Neither prophylaxis nor preemption has yet been shown to be superior. Newer trials are also reviewed, which are beginning to evaluate protocols of preemption or prophylaxis representative of current practice, as well as to explore alternative dosing strategies, the benefits of cytomegalovirus immune globulin, and the potential benefit of a longer course of prophylaxis. Concerns for the selection of ganciclovir-resistant strains of cytomegalovirus are also addressed.

SUMMARY

The consensus is that there is benefit for the treatment of solid-organ transplant patients with an antiviral agent before clinical evidence of cytomegalovirus disease. So far, there has been no demonstration of the superiority of prophylactic or preemptive regimens, nor has the exact nature and dosing of the oral antiviral agent of choice been established.

Infecciones en los pacientes trasplantados de hígado

Infection is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in liver transplant patients. Infections appear in three different periods following transplantation and are related to surgical factors, the degree of immunosuppression, environmental exposure and the type of prophylaxis used. Bacterial infections occur in the first two months after transplantation as bacteremia, surgical wound and intra-abdominal infection, or pneumonia. Tuberculosis in the liver transplant recipient is more aggressive than in immunocompetent persons. Viruses produce direct infection in these patients; moreover, some viruses (e.g., cytomegalovirus and human herpes virus 6) are immunomodulators and can facilitate other infections and graft rejection. Polymerase chain reaction and antigenemia techniques have made possible prompt diagnosis of cytomegalovirus infection and the implementation of prophylactic strategies. Fungal infections still have a high associated mortality rate, despite new diagnostic techniques and new antifungal drugs.

Update in infectious diseases in liver transplant recipients

The prevention and management of bacterial, fungal, and viral infections are important components in the care of the liver transplant recipient. Although much progress has been made, challenges still remain. This article provides updates on the management of bilomas and peritonitis, the prevention and management of invasive Candida and Aspergillus infections, the prevention and management of cytomegalovirus disease, and the current status of liver transplantation in HIV-infected patients.

Valganciclovir: what is the status in solid organ transplantation?

Prophylactic drug therapy for cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients is effective and simple to implement, but it is associated with patient nonadherence and viral resistance. Recent data show that the efficacy and safety of oral ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir are similar. However, three large daily doses of oral ganciclovir are required, which is inconvenient, and viral resistance can develop to the drug. The single daily dose and lack of viral resistance are advantages of valganciclovir. This has become the primary agent for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease. Current trials are underway to determine its effectiveness for treatment of cytomegalovirus disease, the optimal length of prophylaxis, and the safety and efficacy of a syrup formulation in children.