Ganciclovir prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease

Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of −20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −36.09% to −4.98%), −19.3% (95% CI = −32.7% to −5.93%), and −10.4% (95% CI = −19.7% to −0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.

Efficacy and safety of conventional antiviral agents in preventive strategies for cytomegalovirus infection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in kidney transplantation (KT). Antiviral-agents are used as universal prophylaxis. Our purpose aimed to compare and rank efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL were used from inception to September 2020 regardless language restriction. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the CMV infection/disease prophylaxis among antiviral-agents in adult KT recipients. Of 24 eligible RCTs, prophylactic valganciclovir (VGC) could significantly lower the overall CMV infection and disease risks than placebo with pooled risk differences (RDs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of -0.36 (-0.54, -0.18) and -0.28 (-0.48, -0.08), respectively. Valacyclovir (VAC) and ganciclovir (GC) significantly decreased risks with the corresponding RDs of -0.25 (-0.32, -0.19) and -0.30 (-0.37, -0.22) for CMV infection and -0.26 (-0.40, -0.12) and -0.22 (-0.31, -0.12) for CMV disease. For subgroup analysis by seropositive-donor and seronegative-recipient (D+/R-), VGC and GC significantly lowered the risk of CMV infection/disease with RDs of -0.42 (-0.84, -0.01) and -0.35 (-0.60, -0.12). For pre-emptive strategies, GC lowered the incidence of CMV disease significantly with pooled RDs of -0.33 (-0.47, -0.19). VGC may be the best in prophylaxis of CMV infection/disease follow by GC. VAC might be an alternative where VGC and GC are not available.

Recombinant human IgG antibodies against human cytomegalovirus

OBJECTIVE

To study the passive immunization with human monoclonal antibodies as for prophylaxis of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection.

METHODS

Fab monoclonal antibodies to HCMV were recovered by repertoire cloning of mRNA from a HCMV infected individual. Antigen binding specificity, CDR sequence of V(H) and V(L) and neutralizing activity on HCMV AD169 stain were analyzed in vitro. The light and heavy chain Fd fragment genes of Fab antibodies were further cloned into a recombinant baculovirus expression vector pAC-kappa-Fc to express intact IgG. Secreted products were purified with affinity chromatography using protein G.

RESULTS

SDS-PAGE and Western blot confirmed the expression of the intact IgG. Immuno-blotting and -precipitation were used to identify HCMV proteins. One Fab monoclonal antibody recognized a conformational HCMV protein.

CONCLUSION

IgG antibodies can neutralize the HCMV AD169 strain efficiently at a titer of 2.5 microg/mL and may prove valuable for passive immunoprophylaxis against HCMV infection in humans.

Dialysis, kidney transplantation, or pancreas transplantation for patients with diabetes mellitus and renal failure: a decision analysis of treatment options

Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and end-stage renal disease may remain on dialysis or undergo cadaveric kidney transplantation, living kidney transplantation, sequential pancreas after living kidney transplantation, or simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. It is unclear which of these options is most effective. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal treatment strategy for type 1 diabetic patients with renal failure using a decision analytic Markov model. Input data were obtained from the published medical literature, the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, and patient interviews. The outcome measures were life expectancy (in life-years [LY]) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). Living kidney transplantation was associated with 18.30 LY and 10.29 QALY; pancreas after kidney transplantation, 17.21 LY and 10.00 QALY; simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation, 15.74 LY and 9.09 QALY; cadaveric kidney transplantation, 11.44 LY and 6.53 QALY; dialysis, 7.82 LY and 4.52 QALY. The results were sensitive to the value of several key variables. Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation had the greatest life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy when living kidney transplantation was excluded from the analysis. These data indicate that living kidney transplantation is associated with the greatest life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy for type 1 diabetic patients with renal failure. Treatment strategies involving pancreas transplantation should be considered for patients with frequent metabolic complications of diabetes and for those patients who favor kidney-pancreas transplantation over kidney transplantation alone. For patients without a living donor, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation is associated with the greatest life expectancy.

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.