Effect of oral acyclovir or ganciclovir therapy after preemptive intravenous ganciclovir therapy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in cytomegalovirus seropositive renal and liver transplant recipients receiving antilymphocyte antibody therapy

Fifteen-Year Surveillance of LTR Receiving Pre-Emptive Therapy for CMV Infection: Prevention of CMV Disease and Incidence of CLAD

The efficacy of pre-emptive therapy in the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease and the potential association of CMV infection with the occurrence of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) was evaluated in 129 lung transplant recipients receiving pre-emptive therapy based on pp65-antigenemia or CMV-DNA in the blood and in the bronchoalveolar lavage. Seventy-one (55%) patients received pre-emptive ganciclovir/valganciclovir (GCV/VGCV) for CMV infection for a median of 28 (9-191) days. Possible CMV disease occurred in six (5%) patients and was healed after the GCV/VGCV therapy. The cumulative incidence of CLAD was 38% and 54% at 5 and 10 years. Acute rejection and CMV load in the blood (but not in the lung) were independent predictors of the occurrence of CLAD. Pre-emptive therapy is highly effective in preventing CMV disease in lung recipients and does not induce a superior incidence of CLAD compared to what reported for other cohorts of patients who received an extended antiviral prophylaxis.

Usefulness of valacyclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection after anti-thymocyte globulin as rejection therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) treatment for acute T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR) can increase the risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of valacyclovir prophylaxis against CMV infection after ATG administration as anti-rejection therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 55 kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) receiving ATG for steroid resistant TCMR. In all KTRs, we used intravenous ganciclovir during ATG injection. In 34 KTRs treated before July 2013, we performed preemptive therapy for CMV infection after ATG therapy. They were regarded as the historic control group (CONT). After July 2013, we used valacyclovir maintenance for 1 month after ATG therapy in 21 patients (VAL). The primary outcome was the incidence of CMV infection, and the secondary outcomes were subsequent acute rejection, and graft and patient outcome.

RESULTS

Valacyclovir prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of CMV infection (VAL, 9.6% vs. CONT, 67.6%; p < 0.001), and CMV-free survival rate was higher in the VAL group compared to the CONT group (p = 0.009). In the VAL group, two cases of CMV infection were limited to CMV viremia, but CMV disease or syndrome (n = 3) was detected in the CONT group. There was no difference in graft failure (CONT, 70.5% vs. VAL, 47.6%; p = 0.152), incidence of subsequent rejection after ATG treatment (CONT, 41.1% vs. VAL, 33.3%; p = 0.776), and graft or patient survival between the two groups. There were no major adverse events associated with valacyclovir prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, valacyclovir prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of CMV infection after ATG treatment for steroid resistant TCMR.

Risk factors, survival, and impact of prophylaxis length in cytomegalovirus-seropositive lung transplant recipients: A prospective, observational, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The optimal length of cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in lung transplantation according to CMV serostatus is not well established.

METHODS

We have performed a prospective, observational, multicenter study to determine the incidence of CMV infection and disease in 92 CMV-seropositive lung transplant recipients (LTR), their related outcomes and risk factors, and the impact of prophylaxis length.

RESULTS

At 18 months post transplantation, 37 patients (40%) developed CMV infection (23 [25%]) or disease (14 [15.2%]). Overall mortality was higher in patients with CMV disease (64.3% vs 10.2%; P<.001), but only one patient died from CMV disease. In the multivariate analysis, CMV disease was an independent death risk factor (odds ratio [OR] 18.214, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.120-80.527; P<.001). CMV disease incidence was higher in patients with 90-day prophylaxis than in those with 180-day prophylaxis (31.3% vs 11.8%; P=.049). Prophylaxis length was an independent risk factor for CMV disease (OR 4.974, 95% CI 1.231-20.094; P=.024). Sixteen patients withdrew from prophylaxis because of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

CMV infection and disease in CMV-seropositive LTR remain frequent despite current prophylaxis. CMV disease increases mortality, whereas 180-day prophylaxis reduces the incidence of CMV disease.

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.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library to February 2004 for the first version of this review. The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register was searched to February 2007 and to July 2011 for the first and current updates of the review without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications and comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and by mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted, and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 studies (4342 participants). Risk of bias attributes were poorly performed or reported with low risk of bias reported for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting in 25% or fewer studies.Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 studies; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 studies; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 studies; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss.Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the relative benefit of treatment (risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality) by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs.Neurological dysfunction was more common with ganciclovir and valaciclovir compared with placebo/no treatment. In direct comparison studies, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60) and leucopenia was more common with aciclovir. Valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir. The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir/ganciclovir did not differ from valaciclovir in three small studies. Extended duration prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease compared with three months therapy (2 studies; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35). Leucopenia was more common with extended duration prophylaxis but severe treatment associated adverse effects did not differ between extended and three month durations of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. These data suggest that antiviral prophylaxis should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction. Date of last search: February 2007

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications and comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty four studies (3850 participants) were identified. Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 studies; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 studies; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 studies; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the relative benefit of treatment (risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality) by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs. In direct comparison studies, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). Valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. They should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

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 with antiviral agents of patients with CMV viraemia has been widely adopted as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2005), EMBASE (1980 to February 2005) and reference lists and conference proceedings were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed the quality and extracted all data. Analysis was with a random-effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten eligible trials (476 patients) were identified, six of pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or treatment of CMV when disease occurred (standard care), three of pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis and one of oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment. Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease (six trials, 288 patients: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80) but not acute rejection (three trials, 185 patient: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) or all-cause mortality (two trials, 176 patients: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30). Comparative trials of pre-emptive therapy versus prophylaxis showed no significant difference in the risks of CMV disease, acute rejection or all-cause mortality.

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, but additional head-to-head trials are required to determine the relative benefits and harms of pre-emptive therapy and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, trials comparing different antiviral medications and trials comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from each trial. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed using restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta-regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty two trials (3737 participants) were identified. Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 trials; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 trials; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all-cause mortality (17 trials; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (seven trials; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the risk of CMV disease or all-cause mortality by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs. In direct comparison trials, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (seven trials; RR 0.37, 95% Cl 0.23 to 0.60). Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. They should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants.

Does Valganciclovir Hydrochloride (Valcyte) Provide Effective Prophylaxis Against Cytomegalovirus Infection in Liver Transplant Recipients?

INTRODUCTION

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after solid organ transplantation is one of the most common viral infections, causing significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly. Ganciclovir has proven to be effective for the prophylaxis and treatment of CMV. However, oral absorption of ganciclovir is poor. Recently, oral administration of valganciclovir hydrochloride (Valcyte) has been observed to display 10-fold better absorption than oral ganciclovir. Valganciclovir has increasingly been used as prophylaxis against CMV after solid organ transplantation. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of valganciclovir prophylaxis therapy after primary liver transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2001 and May 2003, 203 consecutive liver transplant recipients, including 129 men and 74 women of overall mean age 53 +/- 11 years, received valganciclovir (900 mg/d or 450 mg every other day depending on renal function) for 3 to 6 months after primary liver transplantation. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Mean follow-up was 19 +/- 5.8 months. CMV DNA in peripheral blood was tested using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. Symptomatic CMV was stratified according to the CMV immunoglobulin (Ig)G status of the donor and recipient at the time of liver transplantation. Donors and recipients were classified preoperatively into groups according to the presence or absence of CMV as follows: group 1 (n = 73; donor CMV+, recipient CMV+); group 2 (n = 41; donor CMV-, recipient CMV+); group 3 (n = 54; donor CMV+, recipient CMV-; high-risk group); and group 4 (n = 35; donor CMV-, recipient CMV-).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (14.3%) developed symptomatic CMV disease at 169 +/- 117 days after liver transplantation: group 1, 16.4% versus group 2, 7.3% versus group 3, 25.9% versus group 4, 0%. Of these patients, 5 also had invasive CMV on liver biopsy, which was performed owing to abnormal liver functions. All 29 patients were treated with intravenous ganciclovir. One patient died owing to disseminated CMV, whereas the remaining 28 patients responded to treatment. Interestingly, 8 patients, including 1 who had invasive CMV hepatitis, developed symptomatic CMV within 90 days of liver transplantation even while on prophylactic valganciclovir.

CONCLUSION

Valganciclovir failed to provide adequate prophylaxis following liver transplantation in our patients. The overall rate of CMV in seropositive donors and/or recipients was 17%, and in the high-risk group was 26%. Further prospective studies with measurement of ganciclovir concentrations are needed to elucidate the reasons for this unexpected failure.

Valganciclovir prophylaxis in patients at high risk for the development of cytomegalovirus disease

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in antiviral therapies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains the leading opportunistic infection in the transplant population. Valganciclovir (VGC), the L-valyl ester prodrug of ganciclovir (GCV), provides an excellent oral alternative to GCV for the prevention of CMV in transplant recipients. We investigated the use of VGC for CMV prevention in high-risk renal and pancreas transplant recipients.

METHODS

Patients at high risk for development of CMV disease were defined as either those who had donor positive, recipient-negative serostatus (D+/R-), or those who received antilymphocyte antibody (ALA) therapy for either rejection treatment or induction. A retrospective review was conducted of all kidney and pancreas transplants performed between August 2001 and December 2003. A total of 341 transplants were performed, of which 109 received VGC, and 88 were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of CMV disease was 5.7% (5/88). All of the CMV episodes were in patients who were D+/R- (17.2% [5/29] versus 0% [0/59], P<0.001). Of these patients, all the episodes of CMV were in patients who received VGC prophylaxis for<100 days post transplant (29% [5/17] versus 0% [0/12], P=0.06). The overall incidence of leukopenia was 11% and thrombocytopenia was 7%, with the incidence between the D+/R- group and the ALA group being similar.

CONCLUSION

VGC is an effective agent in preventing CMV disease in kidney and pancreas transplant recipients who are at high risk for developing the disease. The optimal length of prophylaxis in D+/R- patients is still undefined, while 3 months of prophylaxis appears to be sufficient in patients who received ALA therapy.

Strategies for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in pediatric liver transplantation recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common opportunistic infection following solid organ transplantation. Prevention and management of CMV infection has assumed a higher priority as transplantation has become a frequent treatment for many congenital and acquired disorders, as more potent immunosuppressive agents have become available, new molecular and virologic assays to detect CMV have made their way from research to clinical laboratories and new antiviral medications and biologics have been developed. Management strategies are diverse; however, there are little or no data from large controlled pediatric trials demonstrating the superiority of any particular approach. This review outlines the current strategies employed to prevent CMV infection and disease and summarizes the strengths and limitations of each regimen to guide clinicians in the selection of the optimal preventative approach.

Treatment of active cytomegalovirus disease with oral ganciclovir in renal allograft recipients: monitoring efficacy with quantitative cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction

Treatment regimens of patients with active cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease require 2-3 weeks of intravenous ganciclovir (GCV) with/without CMV hyperimmune globulin. Oral GCV is effective as a prophylactic agent in prevention of CMV disease. Here we explored the utility of oral GCV as a treatment of active CMV disease. Fifteen renal allograft recipients (CMV donor+/recipient- [53%], CMV donor+/recipient+ [40%] or CMV donor-/recipient+ [7%]) developed active CMV disease. Cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction (CMV-PCR) tests were performed at the time of presentation and patients were treated with oral ganciclovir 1 g tid (adjusted for renal function). Patients were monitored for efficacy of treatment by assessment of clinical symptoms and CMV-PCR. Treatment was continued until the CMV-PCR copy number was negative and symptoms resolved. The mean CMV-PCR copy number at the time of diagnosis was 580 copies/microg DNA (nl: < 5 copies/microg DNA). After 5-7 days of treatment, the mean copy number was 65 copies/microg DNA. Fourteen of 15 patients responded well to oral ganciclovir, with complete resolution of clinical symptoms and eradication of CMV-PCR positivity. One patient did not respond to oral ganciclovir therapy due to probable noncompliance. Our data suggest that oral ganciclovir treatment, coupled with careful CMV-PCR monitoring, may be a reasonable alternative to long-term intravenous ganciclovir.

Liver transplantation in the UK

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a review of the practice of liver transplantation with the main emphasis on UK practice and indications for transplantation.

REFERRAL AND ASSESSMENT

This section reviews the process of referral and assessment of patients with liver disease with reference to UK practice.

DONOR ORGANS

The practice of brainstem death and cadaveric organ donation is peculiar to individual countries and rates of donation and potential areas of improvement are addressed.

OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE

The technical innovations that have led to liver transplantation becoming a semi-elective procedure are reviewed. Specific emphasis is made to the role of liver reduction and splitting and living related liver transplantation and how this impacts on UK practice are reviewed. The complications of liver transplan-tation are also reviewed with reference to our own unit. Immunosuppression:The evolution of immunosuppression and its impact on liver transplantation are reviewed with some reference to future protocols.

RETRANSPLANTATION

The role of retransplantation is reviewed.

OUTCOME AND SURVIVAL

The results of liver transplantation are reviewed with specific emphasis on our own experience.

FUTURE

The future of liver transplantation is addressed.

Ganciclovir: an update of its use in the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients

Ganciclovir is a nucleoside guanosine analogue which incorporates ganciclovir triphosphate (the active moiety) into DNA during elongation, thereby inhibiting viral replication. Comparative studies of pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir therapies in bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients have shown similar rates of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, disease and patient mortality. Long term prophylaxis with either oral, or sequential intravenous/oral, ganciclovir has shown efficacy in renal allograft recipients, including high risk patients or those receiving antilymphocyte antibody therapy. A preliminary study indicates that ganciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir in paediatric patients. Both oral and intravenous prophylactic ganciclovir regimens have shown efficacy compared with no antiviral treatment in lung transplant recipients; initial reports have shown similar efficacy between pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir. Oral ganciclovir monotherapy is as efficacious as sequential intravenous/oral ganciclovir therapy in liver transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment was equally as effective as long term ganciclovir prophylaxis in high risk patients. Ganciclovir prophylaxis for 4 weeks appears ineffective in heart allograft recipients treated with antithymocyte globulin. Long term sequential intravenous/ oral ganciclovir therapy has shown greater efficacy in preventing CMV disease than sequential ganciclovir/aciclovir therapy. in these patients. Initial reports indicate that pre-emptive therapy may be beneficial in this patient group. although this remains to be determined. Ganciclovir in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability with adverse effects usually of a haematological or neurological nature. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia are the primary dose-limiting toxicities associated with ganciclovir therapy. Overall, neutropenia occurs less frequently with administration of oral ganciclovir than with intravenous ganciclovir. Monitoring of renal function is recommended as serum creatinine levels may rise during ganciclovir therapy. In addition, ganciclovir prophylaxis appears more cost effective than the majority of other currently available therapies for CMV with oral ganciclovir more cost effective than intravenous ganciclovir. In conclusion, it is unlikely that a single strategy will be able to be applied to all transplant patients for the prevention of CMV disease. An optimal strategy will probably be arisk-adapted approach. Prophylactic treatment with ganciclovir appears the best strategy to implement in high risk patients: oral ganciclovir formulations may be best employed where lower toxicity is required. Pre-emptive treatment with ganciclovir appears most efficacious in patients identified as lower risk or, in the case of BMT recipients, where lower toxicity may be desirable. Ganciclovir remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention and treatment of CMV disease in transplant recipients.

Liver transplantation in the UK

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a review of the practice of liver transplantation with the main emphasis on UK practice and indications for transplantation.

REFERRAL AND ASSESSMENT

This section reviews the process of referral and assessment of patients with liver disease with reference to UK practice.

DONOR ORGANS

The practice of brainstem death and cadaveric organ donation is peculiar to individual countries and rates of donation and potential areas of improvement are addressed.

OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE

The technical innovations that have led to liver transplantation becoming a semi-elective procedure are reviewed. Specific emphasis is made to the role of liver reduction and splitting and living related liver transplantation and how this impacts on UK practice are reviewed. The complications of liver transplan-tation are also reviewed with reference to our own unit. Immunosuppression:The evolution of immunosuppression and its impact on liver transplantation are reviewed with some reference to future protocols.

RETRANSPLANTATION

The role of retransplantation is reviewed.

OUTCOME AND SURVIVAL

The results of liver transplantation are reviewed with specific emphasis on our own experience.

FUTURE

The future of liver transplantation is addressed.

New developments in the management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease after renal transplantation

The clinical management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal transplant recipients has recently been significantly improved with the availability of data on prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir. In addition, significant progress in early diagnosis and the quantitation of viral load has been achieved. The influence of novel immunosuppressants on the clinical course of cytomegalovirus infection has been clarified to some extent by recent clinical data. The identification of risk factors for cytomegalovirus disease beyond seroconstellation and immunosuppression is an ongoing process that might lead to a more targeted use of antiviral agents, given the risk of ganciclovir resistance. The understanding of the effects of cytomegalovirus on long-term graft outcome still needs to be deepened in order to design cytomegalovirus-specific interventions to improve graft survival.

Patterns of cytomegalovirus infection in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone with ganciclovir prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The impact of tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroid immunosuppression on cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in combination with ganciclovir prophylaxis in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation (SKPT) has not been well studied.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of 75 SKPTs performed between 1 January 1996 and 7 January 1999. All patients received ganciclovir for 3 months, but CMV donor (D)+ / recipient (R)- patients received ganciclovir for 6 months.

RESULTS

16/74 (22%) were CMV D+/R-, 25 (33%) D+/R+, 16 (22%) D-/R+, and 17 (23%) D-/R- (1 patient with unknown donor serology was excluded). The mean time to CMV infection was 198 days post-transplant. The incidence of either CMV infection or tissue invasive CMV disease was 16/74 (22%), including 9 (12%) with CMV infection and 7 (10%) CMV disease. The one-year patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates were 91%, 89%, and 83%, respectively. The mean follow-up was 29 months (minimum of 12 months). CMV infection was not associated with an increased incidence of graft failure or mortality. The D+/R- group had the highest incidence of CMV infection (44%) compared with the other serologic groups (17%, P=0.02). Concurrent CMV and rejection occurred more frequently in the D+/R- than the other serologic groups (25% vs. 7%, P=0.03). The D-/R- group had the best outcomes, with no CMV infection, improved kidney graft survival at the end of follow-up (82% vs. 72%, P=0.04) and the highest event-free survival (no CMV infection, rejection, or graft loss) when compared to the other groups (76% vs. 33%, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to previous studies, ganciclovir prophylaxis delayed the onset and reduced the severity of CMV infection in patients receiving TAC, MMF, and steroids. Despite ganciclovir prophylaxis, CMV seronegative patients receiving CMV D+ organs had worse outcomes than seronegative recipients receiving CMV D- organs.

Preemptive treatment approach to cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant patients: relationship between compliance with the guidelines and prevention of CMV morbidity

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of morbidity in solid organ transplant patients. In order to reduce CMV morbidity, we designed a program of routine virological monitoring that included throat and urine CMV shell vial culture, along with peripheral blood leukocyte (PBL) shell vial quantitative culture for 12 weeks post-transplantation, as well as 8 weeks after treatment for acute rejection. The program also included preemptive ganciclovir treatment for those patients with the highest risk of developing CMV disease, i.e., with either high-level viremia (>10 infectious units [IU]/106 PBL) or low-level viremia (<10 IU/106 PBL) and either D+/R- CMV serostatus or treatment for graft rejection. During 1995-96, 90 solid organ transplant recipients (39 kidneys, 28 livers, and 23 hearts) were followed up. A total of 60 CMV infection episodes occurred in 45 patients. Seventeen episodes were symptomatic. Of 26 episodes managed according to the program, only 4 presented with CMV disease and none died. No patient treated preemptively for asymptomatic infection developed disease. In contrast, among 21 episodes managed in non-compliance with the program (i.e., the monitoring was not performed or preemptive treatment was not initiated despite a high risk of developing CMV disease), 12 episodes turned into symptomatic infection (P=0.0048 compared to patients treated preemptively), and 2 deaths possibly related to CMV were recorded. This difference could not be explained by an increased proportion of D+/R- patients or an increased incidence of rejection among patients with episodes treated in non-compliance with the program. Our data identify compliance with guidelines as an important factor in effectively reducing CMV morbidity through preemptive treatment, and suggest that the complexity of the preemptive approach may represent an important obstacle to the successful prevention of CMV morbidity by this approach in the regular healthcare setting.

Infections in pediatric kidney and liver transplant patients after perioperative hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Infectious complications are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after organ transplantation. There are several reports on infections during the first months after transplantation, but there are very few data regarding infections in long-term survivors of pediatric organ transplantation.

METHODS

The incidence and type of infections were retrospectively analyzed in 56 children who underwent 59 liver or renal transplantations. Follow-up was begun when the patient was sent home after a successful operation. All of the children received triple immunosuppression.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (total, 286 patient years), 1540 episodes of infection were recorded. The median incidence was 4.8 episodes/patient year. The greatest number was seen in the smallest children, 3 to 6 months after transplantation. Viral upper respiratory tract infections were the most common problem, accounting for half of the episodes (2.7 episodes/patient year). Gastroenteritis was the second most common viral infection. Only 45 episodes of infection with herpesviruses were recorded, and seven of those were caused by cytomegalovirus. Otitis media and sinusitis were the most common bacterial infections and complicated upper respiratory infection in 23% of episodes. Thirty-nine episodes of urinary tract infections were diagnosed, thirty-one in children with renal transplants. Other bacterial infections were rare, and only three episodes of verified bacterial sepsis were diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

The frequency and type of infections in children with liver and renal transplants who are on triple immunosuppression are quite similar to those in age-matched healthy children.

Prevention of recurrent cytomegalovirus disease in renal and liver transplant recipients: effect of oral ganciclovir

BACKGROUND

Although the primary treatment of symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in organ transplant recipients is successful in >90% of individuals, relapsing disease, particularly in those with primary infection, remains an important problem. Previously, we had observed that the rate of symptomatic recurrence was >60% in those with primary disease (seronegative for CMV prior to transplant), and approximately 20% in those who were seropositive prior to transplant. The present study was undertaken to determine whether a maintenance regimen of oral ganciclovir for 2-3 months added to the routine 14-21 days of intravenous ganciclovir would further prevent symptomatic CMV recurrence.

METHODS

From May 1995 until June 1998, all kidney and liver transplant recipients with confirmed tissue-invasive CMV disease or CMV syndrome were treated with 14-21 days of intravenous ganciclovir (5 mg/kg b.i.d. with dose adjusted for renal dysfunction) followed by 2-3 months of oral ganciclovir (2 g daily). The incidence of recurrence of CMV disease and/or viremia during and after oral therapy was then determined over a mean follow-up of 530.6 days.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients, 19 kidney and 18 liver transplant recipients, were studied; 5 had biopsy-proven tissue-invasive disease (13.5) and 32 suffered a CMV syndrome (86.5). Twenty-one of these patients (58.6) were seronegative for CMV prior to transplant and received an allograft from a seropositive donor (D+/R-). Overall, 10 patients (27.0) developed CMV recurrence. Eight of 21 patients who were D+/R- for CMV (38.1) developed recurrence as opposed to 2 of 16 patients with other serologic status (12.5) (P=0.14). Patients with recurrent CMV disease and/or viremia had a peak antigenemia assay titer during their initial CMV event of 319.2 positive cells/2 slides compared with 109.8 positive cells/2 slides for patients without recurrent CMV infection (P=0.14); the trend of having a higher peak antigenemia assay titer among patients who recurred occurred both in patients who were at risk of primary CMV infection (D+/R- for CMV) and in those who were not. Two patients developed recurrent infection with strains of CMV that were resistant to ganciclovir.

CONCLUSIONS

This new therapeutic regimen of oral ganciclovir following intravenous ganciclovir slightly reduced the overall rate of recurrent CMV disease and/or viremia, but it still did not adequately prevent CMV recurrence in patients who are at risk of primary infection prior to transplant. Of particular concern, 2 patients with primary infection treated with this regimen developed ganciclovir-resistant recurrent disease.

Safety and efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in kidney and liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Leukopenia is not infrequently encountered following solid organ transplantation, most often in the setting of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease and/or its treatment with ganciclovir. The present study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in renal and liver transplant recipients with leukopenia.

METHODS

Between 1 June 1991 and 1 June 1998, patients received G-CSF for 2 indications: 1) white blood cell count (WBC) < 3000/mm3, with a decline from baseline; 2) to shorten the duration of leukopenia associated with chemotherapy. A retrospective review of the outcome of such therapy was undertaken.

RESULTS

50 patients were given 100 courses of treatment with G-CSF; 35 of 168 liver transplant recipients (20.8%), 14 of 391 kidney transplant recipients (3.6%), and 1 of 4 recipients of combined liver-kidney transplants (25.0%) received from 1 to 9 courses of G-CSF. Presumed causes of leukopenia were identified as ganciclovir in 28 cases (28.0%), CMV in 21 (21.0%), chemotherapy in 12 (12.0%), sepsis in 11 (11.0%), azathioprine in 5 (5.0%), interferon in 3 (3.0%) and other causes in 20 cases (20.0%). The median length of therapy was 10.0 days (range 1-154 days) and the average dose of daily G-CSF received was 3.9+/-1.5 microg/kg/day. The average WBC was (2.4+/-1.3 )x 10(3)/microl at the beginning of therapy, and (13.8+/-9.1) x 10(3)/microl at the end of therapy. In 7 of 100 treatments (7.0%) a WBC of 5.0 x 10(3)/microl was not reached during G-CSF therapy; in 6 of these 7 cases, G-CSF therapy lasted fewer than 4 days. The mean time needed to reach a WBC count of 5 x 10(3)/microl was 3.7+/-3.3 days among 71 patients who had daily WBC counts sent. Eight G-CSF treatments (8.0%) were followed by episodes of rejection appearing during or within 2 months of treatment; 5 of them were biopsy-documented. No relation was found between the highest WBC obtained during G-CSF therapy and the risk of rejection. Eight patients (16.0%) died while receiving G-CSF, all from infection. Six of these 8 patients were receiving G-CSF for leukopenia secondary to sepsis. Overall, 25 patients (50.0%) received 49 courses of G-CSF secondary to CMV and/or ganciclovir therapy. In 40 of 49 courses (81.6%), ganciclovir could be continued at recommended doses. Twenty-one of 22 patients (95.5%) with symptomatic CMV infection had a clinical response to ganciclovir. Sixteen of 18 patients (88.9%) treated for a CMV infection and followed with serial antigenemia assays attained microbiological cure; both patients who did not were infected with ganciclovir resistant CMV.

CONCLUSION

G-CSF was well tolerated in solid organ transplant recipients. It was particularly useful in patients with CMV disease, allowing optimal ganciclovir therapy.

New strategies for prevention and therapy of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in solid-organ transplant recipients

In the past three decades since the inception of human organ transplantation, cytomegalovirus (CMV) has gained increasing clinical import because it is a common pathogen in the immunocompromised transplant recipient. Patients may suffer from severe manifestations of this infection along with the threat of potential fatality. Additionally, the dynamic evolution of immunosuppressive and antiviral agents has brought forth changes in the natural history of CMV infection and disease. Transplant physicians now face the daunting task of recognizing and managing the changing spectrum of CMV infection and its consequences in the organ recipient. For the microbiology laboratory, the emphasis has been geared toward the development of more sophisticated detection assays, including methods to detect emerging antiviral resistance. The discovery of novel antiviral chemotherapy is an important theme of clinical research. Investigations have also focused on preventative measures for CMV disease in the solid-organ transplant population. In all, while much has been achieved in the overall management of CMV infection, the current understanding of CMV pathogenesis and therapy still leaves much to be learned before success can be claimed.

Cytomegalovirus PP65 antigenemia monitoring as a guide for preemptive therapy: a cost effective strategy for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in adult liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to assess the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in adult liver transplant recipients, using routine preemptive therapy guided by the pp65 antigenemia test.

METHODS

Antigenemia was monitored weekly after liver transplantation (OLTX) for the first 3 months, and once a month for another 3 months. CMV seronegative recipients were treated preemptively for the first positive antigenemia. Seropositive recipients were treated only when their antigenemia count reached a threshold of > or =100 positive cells per 200,000 leukocytes.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients were included between June 1994 and April 1995, of which 137 (95%) were primary OLTX. The percentage of positive antigenemia and CMV disease was 55 and 8%, respectively. Seventy-eight (54%) patients were protocol-monitored for the entire follow-up (group 1) and received appropriate preemptive therapy, although 66 (46%) patients had protocol violation by having missed blood samples or blood drawn at unscheduled times (group 2). Using Cox's proportional hazards model, patients with a first antigenemia count of >11 leukocytes had a significantly higher rate of CMV disease compared to patients with an antigenemia count < or =11 leukocytes (RR = 7.3, 95% confidence interval = 2.2 to 24.5). In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjustments were made to control for: group 1 versus group 2, use of OKT3, and serology risk categories. This analysis showed that the relative rate of CMV disease was still significantly higher among patients with antigenemia count >11 leukocytes (adjusted RR = 4.9, 95% confidence interval = 1.3 to 18.1). The estimated cost of preemptive therapy was less than that of prophylaxis with i.v. (14-day course) or oral (90-day course) ganciclovir.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive therapy guided by pp65 antigenemia is a useful and cost effective strategy for prevention of CMV disease.

Prevention and treatment of cytomegalovirus infection in organ transplant recipients

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common viral pathogen in organ transplant recipients. The patients at highest risk of developing CMV disease are seronegative recipients of seropositive donors, and seropositive recipients who receive antilymphocyte agents such as OKT3 and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) for induction or for rejection. There have been many trials of CMV prevention, but they are difficult to compare with one another because of variability in definitions and end points. Two modalities that have been used to prevent CMV disease are prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. In prophylaxis all patients are given an antiviral agent in order to prevent CMV disease, while in preemptive therapy (also called targeted prophylaxis) only patients who are identified as 'high risk' are selected for treatment. Selected trials of prophylaxis and preemptive therapy in solid-organ recipients are reviewed. The factors to be considered in using one modality or the other are side effects from antivirals, cost of monitoring and antivirals, efficacy of the two modalities, and potential emergence of drug resistance. Sensitive tests that have been used for early diagnosis and monitoring of CMV are antigenemia and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Antigen pp65 is a lower matrix protein and can be detected in peripheral blood leukocytes. The sensitivity and specificity are high and vary from 89% to 100% and 92% to 96%, respectively. Currently, many authors believe that the antigenemia test is more useful than the PCR test. The antigenemia test is useful for viral monitoring as a guide for preemptive therapy after organ transplantation. Persistence of high counts of antigenemia may indicate inadequate antiviral therapy or emergence of resistance. Recurrence of positive antigenemia after treatment of CMV disease can be a sign of relapse. Transplant patients who develop resistance to antiviral drugs are usually seronegative recipients who receive an organ from a seropositive donor and have several courses of antivirals for CMV disease. Ganciclovir is the most frequent antiviral agent used in transplant recipients and is usually well tolerated. Resistance to ganciclovir may occur and is usually secondary to virus mutation in the UL97 gene. The availability of sensitive diagnostic tests such as pp65 antigenemia has made the early diagnosis of CMV possible in organ transplant recipients. CMV is being treated much earlier now, and progression to disseminated disease is uncommon. Prudent use of antiviral drugs will hopefully limit the problem of drug resistance.