1
|
Sandikçi B, Ulukuş MY, Ergün MA, Tanriöver B. Cytomegalovirus Matching in Deceased Donor Kidney Allocation: Results From a U.S. National Simulation Model. Transplant Direct 2024; 10:e1622. [PMID: 38769987 PMCID: PMC11104729 DOI: 10.1097/txd.0000000000001622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 02/22/2024] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infects >60% of adults and can pose an independent risk factor for allograft loss and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a nationwide implementation of CMV seromatching (donor/recipient: D-/R- and D+/R+) in the U.S. deceased donor kidney allocation system (KAS). Methods Adult candidates on the U.S. kidney-only transplant waiting list and deceased donor kidneys offered to the U.S. transplant centers were considered. A discrete-event simulation model, simulating the pre-COVID-19 period from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2018, was used to compare the performances of currently employed KAS-250 policy (without CMV matching) to various simulated CMV matching policies parameterized by calculated panel reactive antibody exception threshold. Outcomes included CMV serodistribution, waiting time, access to transplantation among various groups, transplant rate, graft survival, kidney discard rate, and antigen-mismatch distribution, stratified by CMV serostatus. Results CMV matching policy with a calculated panel reactive antibody exception threshold of 50% (namely, the CMV">50%" policy) strikes a better balance between benefits and drawbacks of CMV matching. Compared with KAS-250, CMV">50%" reduced CMV high-risk (D+/R-) transplants (6.1% versus 18.1%) and increased CMV low-risk (D-/R-) transplants (27.2% versus 13.1%); increased transplant rate for CMV R- patients (11.54 versus 12.57) but decreased for R+ patients (10.68 versus 10.48), yielding an increase in aggregate (11.09 versus 10.94); and reduced mean time to transplantation (by 6 wk); and reduced kidney discard rate (25.7% versus 26.2%). Conclusions Our findings underscore the feasibility and potential advantages of a nationwide CMV seromatching policy in kidney transplantation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Burhaneddin Sandikçi
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - M Yasin Ulukuş
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergün
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - Bekir Tanriöver
- Division of Nephrology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Silva Junior HT, Tokat Y, Cai J, Singh I, Sandhu A, Demuth D, Kim J. Epidemiology, management, and burden of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients in selected countries outside of Europe and North America: A systematic review. Transpl Infect Dis 2023; 25:e14070. [PMID: 37254966 DOI: 10.1111/tid.14070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2023] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 05/06/2023] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a frequent infectious complication following solid organ transplantation (SOT). Considering significant differences in healthcare systems, a systematic review was conducted to describe the epidemiology, management, and burden of CMV post-SOT in selected countries outside of Europe and North America. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for observational studies in SOT recipients across 15 countries in the regions of Asia, Pacific, and Latin America (search period: January 1, 2011 to September 17, 2021). Outcomes included incidence of CMV infection/disease, recurrence, risk factors, CMV-related mortality, treatment patterns and guidelines, refractory and/or resistant CMV, patient-reported outcomes, and economic burden. RESULTS Of 2708 studies identified, 49 were eligible (n = 43/49; 87.8% in adults; n = 34/49, 69.4% in kidney recipients). Across studies, selection of CMV preventive strategy was based on CMV serostatus. Overall, rates of CMV infection (within 1 year) and CMV disease post-SOT were respectively, 10.3%-63.2% (9 studies) and 0%-19.0% (17 studies). Recurrence occurred in 35.4%-41.0% cases (3 studies) and up to 5.3% recipients died of CMV-associated causes (11 studies). Conventional treatments for CMV infection/disease included ganciclovir (GCV) or valganciclovir. Up to 4.4% patients were resistant to treatment (3 studies); no studies reported on refractory CMV. Treatment-related adverse events with GCV included neutropenia (2%-29%), anemia (13%-48%), leukopenia (11%-37%), and thrombocytopenia (13%-24%). Data on economic burden were scarce. CONCLUSION Outside of North America and Europe, rates of CMV infection/disease post-SOT are highly variable and CMV recurrence is frequent. CMV resistance and treatment-associated adverse events, including myelosuppression, highlight unmet needs with conventional therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yaman Tokat
- International Liver Center & Acibadem Healthcare Hospitals, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Jinzhen Cai
- Organ Transplantation Center, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| | | | - Anudeep Sandhu
- Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG-Singapore Branch, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Dirk Demuth
- Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG-Singapore Branch, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jongman Kim
- Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Blom KB, Birkeland GK, Midtvedt K, Jenssen TG, Reisæter AV, Rollag H, Hartmann A, Sagedal S, Sjaastad I, Tylden G, Njølstad G, Nilsen E, Christensen A, Åsberg A, Birkeland JA. Cytomegalovirus High-risk Kidney Transplant Recipients Show No Difference in Long-term Outcomes Following Preemptive Versus Prophylactic Management. Transplantation 2023; 107:1846-1853. [PMID: 37211633 PMCID: PMC10358437 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000004615] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2022] [Revised: 12/23/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Following kidney transplantation (KT), cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains an important challenge. Both prophylactic and preemptive antiviral protocols are used for CMV high-risk kidney recipients (donor seropositive/recipient seronegative; D+/R-). We performed a nationwide comparison of the 2 strategies in de novo D+/R- KT recipients accessing long-term outcomes. METHODS A nationwide retrospective study was conducted from 2007 to 2018, with follow-up until February 1, 2022. All adult D+/R- and R+ KT recipients were included. During the first 4 y, D+/R- recipients were managed preemptively, changing to 6 mo of valganciclovir prophylaxis from 2011. To adjust for the 2 time eras, de novo intermediate-risk (R+) recipients, who received preemptive CMV therapy throughout the study period, served as longitudinal controls for possible confounders. RESULTS A total of 2198 KT recipients (D+/R-, n = 428; R+, n = 1770) were included with a median follow-up of 9.4 (range, 3.1-15.1) y. As expected, a greater proportion experienced a CMV infection in the preemptive era compared with the prophylactic era and with a shorter time from KT to CMV infection ( P < 0.001). However, there were no differences in long-term outcomes such as patient death (47/146 [32%] versus 57/282 [20%]; P = 0.3), graft loss (64/146 [44%] versus 71/282 [25%]; P = 0.5), or death censored graft loss (26/146 [18%] versus 26/282 [9%]; P = 0.9) in the preemptive versus prophylactic era. Long-term outcomes in R+ recipients showed no signs of sequential era-related bias. CONCLUSIONS There were no significant differences in relevant long-term outcomes between preemptive and prophylactic CMV-preventive strategies in D+/R- kidney transplant recipients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kjersti B. Blom
- Department of Nephrology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway
- Institute for Experimental Medical Research, KG Jebsen Center for Cardiac Research, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Karsten Midtvedt
- Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
| | - Trond G. Jenssen
- Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Anna V. Reisæter
- Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
| | - Halvor Rollag
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Anders Hartmann
- Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
| | - Solbjørg Sagedal
- Department of Nephrology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ivar Sjaastad
- Institute for Experimental Medical Research, KG Jebsen Center for Cardiac Research, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Garth Tylden
- Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - Gro Njølstad
- Department of Microbiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Einar Nilsen
- Department of Microbiology, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Molde, Norway
| | - Andreas Christensen
- Department of Medical Microbiology, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Anders Åsberg
- Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
- The Norwegian Renal Registry, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Jon A. Birkeland
- Department of Nephrology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Magid M, Byrns J, Gommer J, Yang Z, Lee H, Harris M. Early versus delayed initiation of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis after liver transplant. Pharmacotherapy 2022; 42:634-640. [DOI: 10.1002/phar.2714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2022] [Revised: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 05/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Mackenzie Magid
- Department of Pharmacy Duke University Hospital Durham North Carolina USA
| | - Jennifer Byrns
- Department of Pharmacy Duke University Hospital Durham North Carolina USA
| | - Jennifer Gommer
- Department of Pharmacy Duke University Hospital Durham North Carolina USA
| | - Zidanyue Yang
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA
| | - Hui‐Jie Lee
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA
| | - Matt Harris
- Department of Pharmacy Duke University Hospital Durham North Carolina USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Raval AD, Kistler KD, Tang Y, Murata Y, Snydman DR. Epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes associated with cytomegalovirus in adult kidney transplant recipients: A systematic literature review of real-world evidence. Transpl Infect Dis 2020; 23:e13483. [PMID: 33012092 DOI: 10.1111/tid.13483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have increased risk for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/disease given the necessity of drug-induced immunosuppression. A comprehensive review of published literature reporting real-world data on prevention strategies utilized and associated CMV burden outcomes is limited. Such data could help inform future clinical practice and identify unmet needs in CMV management. We conducted a systematic review of observational studies published in Medline or EMBASE from January 2008 to November 2018 to identify current real-world CMV management approaches, CMV infection/disease risk factors, and outcomes associated with CMV infection. Descriptive statistics and pooled quantitative analyses were conducted. From 1608 records screened, 86 citations, including 69 803 adult KTR, were included. Prophylaxis and preemptive therapy (PET) were predominant approaches among D+/R- and R + CMV serostatus transplants, respectively. Valganciclovir and ganciclovir were frequently utilized across CMV risk strata. Despite prevention approaches, approximately one-fourth of KTR developed CMV infection. Age and D+/R- CMV serostatus were consistent risk factors for CMV infection/disease. CMV infection/disease was associated with increased mortality and graft loss. CMV was similarly associated with acute rejection (AR) risk, but with high heterogeneity among studies. Limited data were available on CMV and opportunistic infections (OIs) risk. CMV remains a significant issue. New strategies may be needed to optimize CMV management.
Collapse
|
6
|
Sarmento DJDS, Caliento R, Souza AOD, Tozetto-Mendoza TR, Palmieri M, Martins VADO, Braz-Silva PH, Gallottini M. Salivary shedding of herpesviruses in renal transplant recipients. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 9:e12356. [DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2018] [Accepted: 05/18/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rubens Caliento
- Department of Stomatology; School of Dentistry; University of São Paulo; São Paulo Brazil
| | | | | | - Michelle Palmieri
- Department of Stomatology; School of Dentistry; University of São Paulo; São Paulo Brazil
| | | | - Paulo Henrique Braz-Silva
- Department of Stomatology; School of Dentistry; University of São Paulo; São Paulo Brazil
- Institute of Tropical Medicine of São Paulo; Univerity of São Paulo; São Paulo Brazil
| | - Marina Gallottini
- Department of Stomatology; School of Dentistry; University of São Paulo; São Paulo Brazil
| |
Collapse
|