Long-term outcomes of CMV disease treatment with valganciclovir versus IV ganciclovir in solid organ transplant recipients

Non-antiviral therapies for viral infections: Harnessing host mechanisms

Despite advancements in the field of directly acting anti-viral (DAA) therapies, viral infections still continue to pose significant global health challenges. The efficacy of DAAs are often hindered by mutations, origin of new strains, development of resistance and lack of broad spectrum effectiveness. Furthermore, patients with advanced-stage diseases may require higher doses and combinations of different DAA therapies, raising concerns about tolerability and safety. To overcome all these constraints, non-antiviral therapies that focuses on host mechanisms (also known as host-focused therapies) are emerging as an innovative approach. Host focused therapy aims to target the host molecules and pathways that are essential for viral infection and disease progression. Along with addressing the above mentioned challenges, these host focused therapies can also modulate excessive inflammatory responses. Recent advancements in understanding host-virus interactions and the pathways involved in the pathogenesis of severe viral infections from viral entry and replication to disease progression, have accelerated the development of host-focused therapies aimed at combating these infections. This review explores the growing rationale and various opportunities for host-focused therapies for severe viral infections including zika virus, dengue, HIV, influenza, and covid-19 to name a few. In addition, current clinical trial information on various classes of host focused therapies are presented, highlighting their therapeutic potential and significance in the field.

Cytomegalovirus-RNA Accurately Identifies Clinically Significant Infection Needing Preemptive Therapy in Liver Transplanted Children: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Preemptive therapy (PET) is safe and effective in controlling Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after pediatric liver transplantation (LT) and allows to observe the kinetics of quantitative CMV-DNA viral load till it reaches the treatment thresholds. While early detection of low-to-moderate CMV-DNA levels may not indicate active viral replication, awaiting the viral load to exceed the treatment threshold may lead to viremic breakthroughs and CMV disease. We assessed the capacity of quantitative CMV-RNA (UL21.5 mRNA) to identify active viral replication and its accuracy in identifying clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) needing PET in LT children. One-hundred and forty-four comparative quantitative CMV-RNA and CMV-DNA determinations were obtained from 12 children followed prospectically for 6 months after LT. Of 52 CMV-DNA-positive specimens, 17 (32%) were also CMV-RNA-positive, while CMV-RNA was undetectable in CMV-DNA-negative specimens. All children with csCMVi had early detectable CMV-RNA, peaking simultaneously to CMV-DNA (median CMV-DNA: 65 906 cp/mL; median CMV-RNA: 767 cp/mL); conversely, none of those with persistently low DNAemia proved CMV-RNA-positive. In this first pilot study, CMV-RNA had 100% sensitivity and specificity in identifying children needing PET after pediatric LT. The early detection of CMV-RNA marks significant CMV infection/reactivation, thus allowing to avoid unnecessary antiviral treatment.

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 death 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 2006 and updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of pre-emptive treatment of CMV viraemia to prevent CMV disease and death (any cause) and the indirect effects of CMV infection (acute rejection, graft loss, opportunistic infections) in solid organ transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 17 December 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted all data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed per outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we have included seven new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 22 (1883 participants). Of these, seven investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or standard care, 12 looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, one study investigated oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment, one investigated pre-emptive valganciclovir versus pre-emptive ganciclovir, and one investigated letermovir 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, South Korea, and the USA. Organ transplant recipients included kidney, liver, heart, lung, and kidney-pancreas. Thirteen studies were single-centre studies, six were multicentre, and three were unknown. The number of participants ranged from 12 to 296. Overall, selection bias was unclear (55%); performance, detection and attrition bias were high (91%, 63% and 95%, respectively), and reporting bias was low (55%). Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease (7 studies, 315 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; I2 = 54%; moderate-certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference in death (any cause) (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may result in little or no difference in CMV organ involvement, CMV-associated symptoms, acute rejection, graft loss, other infections or leucopenia. Compared to prophylaxis, pre-emptive treatment may make little or no difference to the risk of developing CMV disease (11 studies, 1322 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.01; I2 = 54%; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little or no difference to death (any cause) (9 studies, 1098 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may increase the risk of CMV infection (8 studies, 867 participants: RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.61; I2 = 66%; low-certainty evidence). The risk of leucopenia (7 studies, 869 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence) and neutropenia (5 studies, 859 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0% moderate certainty evidence) probably decreases with pre-emptive therapy. There may be little or no difference in the risks of acute rejection, graft loss, and infections other than CMV. Single studies were identified for comparisons between different pre-emptive treatments: 1) oral ganciclovir versus IV ganciclovir; 2) valganciclovir versus ganciclovir; 3) 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. No differences between these treatment modalities in terms of CMV disease, death (any cause), or adverse events were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we have included seven new studies, yet the available evidence is overall of low certainty and the conclusions remain similar to the previous version of this review. Pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with placebo or standard care. There were no clear differences between pre-emptive treatment and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease or reduce the risk of death (any cause). The risk of CMV infection may be higher for patients receiving pre-emptive therapy, but the risk of adverse events, such as leucopenia, is probably lower.

Management of cytomegalovirus in adult solid organ transplant patients: GESITRA-IC-SEIMC, CIBERINFEC, and SET recommendations update

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a significant challenge in solid organ transplantation (SOT). The last international consensus guidelines on the management of CMV in SOT were published in 2018, highlighting the need for revision to incorporate recent advances, notably in cell-mediated immunity monitoring, which could alter the current standard of care. A working group including members from the Group for the Study of Infection in Transplantation and the Immunocompromised Host (GESITRA-IC) of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) and the Spanish Society of Transplantation (SET), developed consensus-based recommendations for managing CMV infection in SOT recipients. Recommendations were classified based on evidence strength and quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The final recommendations were endorsed through a consensus meeting and approved by the expert panel.

Refractory anti-viral resistant CMV retinitis in an immunological nonresponder person living with HIV

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis caused by drug-resistant viruses poses a major challenge in immunocompromised patients. We present the case of a patient living with HIV with persistently low CD4+ T cells count despite effective antiretroviral therapy, who experienced multiple episodes of CMV retinitis associated with iterative acquisition of resistance. The failure of ganciclovir and foscarnet treatments led us to implement a combined therapy of intravenous cidofovir, high-dose ganciclovir, and anti-CMV immunoglobulin as well as intravitreal injections of ganciclovir. This triple therapy was successful but resulted in significant myelotoxicity. Furthermore, the relapse of CMV retinitis and/or CMV viremia with each therapeutic de-escalation reflects the high level of immunodeficiency in our patient, despite sustained control of HIV viremia for several months. This case report highlights the need for a particular management of CMV infection in patients living with HIV who are immunological nonresponders.

Cytomegalovirus Treatment in Solid Organ Transplantation: An Update on Current Approaches

OBJECTIVE

The article reviews the safety and efficacy of treatments for cytomegalovirus (CMV) in solid organ transplantation.

DATA SOURCES

A literature review was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov from database inception through January 2024, using terms CMV, therapy, and solid organ transplantation.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Clinical trials, meta-analyses, cohort studies, case reports, and guidelines were included. Letters to the editor, reviews, and commentaries were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

After abstract screening and full-text review of 728 citations for eligibility, 53 were included. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir are drugs of choice for CMV management and, until recently, the availability of alternative options has been restricted due to toxicity. For instance, foscarnet and cidofovir serve as second-line agents due to potential bone marrow and renal toxicity. In patients with refractory or resistant CMV, maribavir, a novel oral agent, has proven efficacy and a lower adverse effect profile. However, in refractory or resistant CMV, foscarnet and cidofovir are preferred in invasive disease (CMV gastritis, CMV retinitis, and CMV encephalitis), high viral loads, and inability to tolerate oral preparations.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Consensus guidelines have not been revised since approval of novel antivirals in solid organ transplantation. Valganciclovir and ganciclovir remain drugs of choice for initial CMV therapy. Foscarnet, cidofovir, and maribavir are treatments for refractory or resistant-CMV.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of CMV antiviral treatment should be determined by patient-specific factors, including severity of illness, resistant or refractory disease, dose-limiting adverse effects, and the preferred route of administration.

Management of resistant and refractory cytomegalovirus infections after transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a classic opportunistic infection in transplant recipients. Treatment-refractory CMV infections are of concern, with growing identification of strains that have developed genetic mutations which confer resistance to standard antiviral therapy. Resistant and refractory CMV infections are associated with worse patient outcomes, prolonged hospitalization, and increased healthcare costs.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a comprehensive practical overview of resistant and refractory CMV infections in transplant recipients. We review the updated definitions for these infections, antiviral pharmacology, mechanisms of drug resistance, diagnostic workup, management strategies, and host-related factors including immune optimization.

EXPERT OPINION

Resistant and refractory CMV infections are a significant contributor to post-transplant morbidity and mortality. This is likely the result of a combination of prolonged antiviral exposure and active viral replication in the setting of intensive pharmacologic immunosuppression. Successful control of resistant and refractory infections in transplant recipients requires a combination of immunomodulatory optimization and appropriate antiviral drug choice with sufficient treatment duration.

Management of cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the primary causes of morbidity and mortality following liver transplantation (LT). Based on current worldwide guidelines, the most effective strategies for avoiding post-transplant CMV infection are antiviral prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment. CMV- IgG serology is the established technique for pretransplant screening of both donors and recipients. The clinical presentation of CMV infection and disease exhibits variability, prompting clinicians to consistently consider this possibility, particularly within the first year post-transplantation or subsequent to heightened immunosuppression. At annual symposia to discuss CMV prevention and how treatment outcomes can be improved, evidence on the incorporation of immune functional tests into clinical practice is presented, and the results of studies with new antiviral treatments are evaluated. Although there are ongoing studies on the use of letermovir and maribavir in solid organ transplantation, a consensus reflected in the guidelines has not been formed. Determining the most appropriate strategy at the individual level appears to be the key to enhancing outcomes. Although prevention strategies reduce the risk of CMV disease, the disease can still occur in up to 50% of high-risk patients. A balance between the risk of infection and disease development and the use of immunosuppressants must be considered when talking about the proper management of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. The objective of this study was to establish a comprehensive framework for the management of CMV in patients who have had LT.

Posttransplant complications: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions

Posttransplantation complications pose a major challenge to the long-term survival and quality of life of organ transplant recipients. These complications encompass immune-mediated complications, infectious complications, metabolic complications, and malignancies, with each type influenced by various risk factors and pathological mechanisms. The molecular mechanisms underlying posttransplantation complications involve a complex interplay of immunological, metabolic, and oncogenic processes, including innate and adaptive immune activation, immunosuppressant side effects, and viral reactivation. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the clinical features, risk factors, and molecular mechanisms of major posttransplantation complications. We systematically summarize the current understanding of the immunological basis of allograft rejection and graft-versus-host disease, the metabolic dysregulation associated with immunosuppressive agents, and the role of oncogenic viruses in posttransplantation malignancies. Furthermore, we discuss potential prevention and intervention strategies based on these mechanistic insights, highlighting the importance of optimizing immunosuppressive regimens, enhancing infection prophylaxis, and implementing targeted therapies. We also emphasize the need for future research to develop individualized complication control strategies under the guidance of precision medicine, ultimately improving the prognosis and quality of life of 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 to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.

Qualitative evaluation of connective tissue disease with cytomegalovirus infection: A meta-analysis of case reports

BACKGROUND

The primary therapies for connective tissue disease include glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. However, their prolonged usage can precipitate opportunistic infections, such as cytomegalovirus infection. When managing connective tissue disease complicated by cytomegalovirus infection, judicious selection of treatment modalities is crucial. This involves assessing the necessity for antiviral therapy and contemplating the reduction or cessation of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

OBJECTIVE

This investigation sought to methodically review existing literature regarding treating connective tissue disease patients with cytomegalovirus infection.

METHODS

On July 5, 2023, an exhaustive literature search was conducted. Data analysis utilized the Kruskal-Wallis test or one-way analysis of variance, supplemented by Bonferroni post hoc testing.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis incorporated 88 studies encompassing 146 connective tissue disease patients with CMV infections. The results indicated that patients with connective tissue disease and cytomegalovirus disease benefitted more from antiviral therapy than those not receiving such treatment (P = 0.003, P < 0.005). Furthermore, the strategic reduction of glucocorticoids and/or immunosuppressants was beneficial (P = 0.037, P < 0.05). Poor clinical outcomes with glucocorticoid-immunosuppressant combination therapy compared to other treatment modalities. The findings also suggested that CMV infection patients fare better without Cyclosporine A than using it (P = 0.041, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Antiviral therapy is a viable treatment option in cases of connective tissue disease co-occurring with cytomegalovirus disease. Additionally, when connective tissue disease is stable, there is potential merit in reducing glucocorticoids and/or immunosuppressants, especially avoiding the combination of these drugs. For all cytomegalovirus infection patients, Cyclosporine A may be avoided wherever possible for selecting immunosuppressive agents if its use is not deemed essential in the treatment regimen.

Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Guidelines by the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society for Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic viral pathogen in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The Korean guideline for the prevention of CMV infection in SOT recipients was developed jointly by the Korean Society for Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society of Transplantation. CMV serostatus of both donors and recipients should be screened before transplantation to best assess the risk of CMV infection after SOT. Seronegative recipients receiving organs from seropositive donors face the highest risk, followed by seropositive recipients. Either antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy can be used to prevent CMV infection. While both strategies have been demonstrated to prevent CMV infection post-transplant, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. CMV serostatus, transplant organ, other risk factors, and practical issues should be considered for the selection of preventive measures. There is no universal viral load threshold to guide treatment in preemptive therapy. Each institution should define and validate its own threshold. Valganciclovir is the favored agent for both prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. The evaluation of CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity and the monitoring of viral load kinetics are gaining interest, but there was insufficient evidence to issue recommendations. Specific considerations on pediatric transplant recipients are included.

Opportunistic Infections Post-Lung Transplantation: Viral, Fungal, and Mycobacterial

Opportunistic infections are a leading cause of lung transplant recipient morbidity and mortality. Risk factors for infection include continuous exposure of the lung allograft to the external environment, high levels of immunosuppression, impaired mucociliary clearance and decreased cough reflex, and impact of the native lung microbiome in single lung transplant recipients. Infection risk is mitigated through careful pretransplant screening of recipients and donors, implementation of antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies, and routine surveillance posttransplant. This review describes common viral, fungal, and mycobacterial infectious after lung transplant and provides recommendations on prevention and treatment.

Management of Cytomegalovirus Infections in the Era of the Novel Antiviral Players, Letermovir and Maribavir

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections may increase morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Until recently, standard antiviral drugs against CMV were limited to viral DNA polymerase inhibitors (val)ganciclovir, foscarnet and cidofovir with a risk for cross-resistance. These drugs may also cause serious side effects. This narrative review provides an update on new antiviral agents that were approved for the prevention and treatment of CMV infections in transplant recipients. Letermovir was approved in 2017 for CMV prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive adults who received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Maribavir followed four years later, with an indication in the treatment of adult and pediatric transplant patients with refractory/resistant CMV disease. The target of letermovir is the CMV terminase complex (constituted of pUL56, pUL89 and pUL51 subunits). Letermovir prevents the cleavage of viral DNA and its packaging into capsids. Maribavir is a pUL97 kinase inhibitor, which interferes with the assembly of capsids and the egress of virions from the nucleus. Both drugs have activity against most CMV strains resistant to standard drugs and exhibit favorable safety profiles. However, high-level resistance mutations may arise more rapidly in the UL56 gene under letermovir than low-grade resistance mutations. Some mutations emerging in the UL97 gene under maribavir can be cross-resistant with ganciclovir. Thus, letermovir and maribavir now extend the drug arsenal available for the management of CMV infections and their respective niches are currently defined.

Herpes Virus Infection in Lung Transplantation: Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention Strategies

Lung transplantation is an ultimate treatment option for some end-stage lung diseases; due to the intense immunosuppression needed to reduce the risk of developing acute and chronic allograft failure, infectious complications are highly incident. Viral infections represent nearly 30% of all infectious complications, with herpes viruses playing an important role in the development of acute and chronic diseases. Among them, cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, being associated with an increased risk of chronic lung allograft failure. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is associated with transformation of infected B cells with the development of post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs). Similarly, herpes simplex virus (HSV), varicella zoster virus and human herpesviruses 6 and 7 can also be responsible for acute manifestations in lung transplant patients. During these last years, new, highly sensitive and specific diagnostic tests have been developed, and preventive and prophylactic strategies have been studied aiming to reduce and prevent the incidence of these viral infections. In this narrative review, we explore epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment options for more frequent herpes virus infections in lung transplant patients.

Cytomegalovirus and Herpes Simplex Virus Co-Infection: Recurrence in a Kidney Transplant Recipient

N/a.

Oral antiviral drugs for treatment of cytomegalovirus in transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an opportunistic pathogen responsible for substantial morbidity after solid organ transplantation and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Treatment of CMV disease involves a two-pronged approach with antiviral drug treatment coupled with strategies to minimize the intensity of immune suppression.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review examines the evidence for the current treatment of CMV disease in transplant recipients, including the use of oral antiviral drugs.

SOURCES

Literature search was performed on PubMed with keywords cytomegalovirus, transplantation, ganciclovir, valganciclovir, maribavir, letermovir, cidofovir, and foscarnet.

CONTENT

Intravenous and oral valganciclovir are the standard first-line treatment of cytomegalovirus disease after transplantation. Oral maribavir has demonstrated superior efficacy and safety over CMV DNA polymerase inhibitors for the treatment of refractory or resistant CMV infection. Transplant patients with severe and life-threatening CMV disease, those with very high viral load, and patients with impaired gastrointestinal absorption should still be treated initially with intravenous antiviral drugs, including ganciclovir and foscarnet. Criteria for the safe transition from intravenous therapies to oral antiviral drugs include achieving clinical improvement and satisfactory decline in viral load. Recurrence of CMV viremia and disease is common, particularly among transplant patients who are lymphopenic and have impaired CMV-specific immunity.

IMPLICATIONS

Oral antiviral drugs for the treatment of CMV infection and disease in transplant recipients have improved the CMV landscape, because they reduce the cost and mitigate the inconvenience and risks related to prolonged hospitalization and the need for long-term intravascular access. However, their antiviral efficacy should be complemented by an intentional strategy of reducing the degree of immune suppression to allow for immunologic recovery that ensures durable control of CMV infection.

Opportunistic Infections Post-Lung Transplantation: Viral, Fungal, and Mycobacterial

Opportunistic infections are a leading cause of lung transplant recipient morbidity and mortality. Risk factors for infection include continuous exposure of the lung allograft to the external environment, high levels of immunosuppression, impaired mucociliary clearance and decreased cough reflex, and impact of the native lung microbiome in single lung transplant recipients. Infection risk is mitigated through careful pretransplant screening of recipients and donors, implementation of antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies, and routine surveillance posttransplant. This review describes common viral, fungal, and mycobacterial infectious after lung transplant and provides recommendations on prevention and treatment.

Prevention and management of CMV infection in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains one of the most common opportunistic infections following solid organ transplantation in children. CMV causes morbidity and mortality through direct tissue-invasive disease and indirect immunomodulatory effects. In recent years, several new agents have emerged for the prevention and treatment of CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients. However, pediatric data remain scarce, and many of the treatments are extrapolated from the adult literature. Controversies exist about the type and duration of prophylactic therapies and the optimal dosing of antiviral agents. This review provides an up-to-date overview of treatment modalities used to prevent and treat CMV disease in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

Utility of Cytomegalovirus Cell-Mediated Immunity Assays in Solid Organ Transplantation

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most important viral complications after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Current preventive and management strategies rely primarily on serologic and viral load testing and remain suboptimal. To address these issues, multiple techniques to measure CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) have been developed and evaluated in clinical studies over the past two decades. These assays show significant promise for the personalization of CMV management. For example, CMI assays can be used to help determine the optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis or whether antiviral therapy is indicated in patients with low levels of CMV reactivation. However, despite numerous studies showing potential utility, these assays are not yet in widespread routine clinical use. Barriers to adoption include variations in test complexity, standardization, and thresholds for positivity and insufficient interventional clinical trials. Here, we provide an updated assessment of commonly available tests and the clinical utility of CMV-specific CMI testing in SOT recipients.

Incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in seropositive kidney transplant recipients treated with everolimus: A randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 4 trial

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) persists as the most frequent opportunistic infection among solid organ transplant recipients. This multicenter trial aimed to test whether treatment with everolimus (EVR) could decrease the incidence of CMV DNAemia and disease. We randomized 186 CMV seropositive kidney transplant recipients in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVR or mycophenolic acid (MPA) in association with basiliximab, cyclosporin, and steroids and 87 in each group were analyzed. No universal prophylaxis was administered to either group. The composite primary endpoint was the presence of CMV DNAemia, CMV treatment, graft loss, death, and discontinuation of the study at 6 months posttransplant. In the modified intent-to-treat analysis, 42 (48.3%) and 70 (80.5%) patients in the EVR and MPA groups reached the primary endpoint (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.11-0.43, p < .0001). Fewer patients of the EVR group received treatment for CMV (21.8% vs. 47.1%, p = .0007). EVR was discontinued in 31 (35.6%) patients. Among the 56 patients with ongoing EVR treatment, only 7.4% received treatment for CMV. In conclusion, EVR prevents CMV DNAemia requiring treatment in seropositive recipients as long as it is tolerated and maintained.

Optimal duration of antiviral treatment in patients with gastrointestinal cytomegalovirus disease at a low and high risk of relapse

We evaluated the association between antiviral treatment duration and relapse of gastrointestinal (GI) cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease by analyzing the risk factors for relapse.Patients who were diagnosed with GI CMV disease at a tertiary hospital from January 2008 to April 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients with relapsed disease were those with a recurrence of GI CMV disease at least 4 weeks after the initial antiviral treatment.Of 238 participants, including 145 (51.9%) with upper and 93 (48.1%) with lower GI CMV diseases, 27 (11.3%) had experienced relapses. The difference in antiviral treatment duration between the relapsed and nonrelapsed GI CMV groups was not significant (median days, 21.0 vs 17.0, P = .13). Multivariate analysis revealed that hematologic malignancy (odds ratio, 3.73; P = .026) and ulcerative colitis (odds ratio, 4.61; P = .003) were independent risk factors for relapse. Participants with at least one of these risk factors and those with no independent risk factors were classified under the high- (relapse rate, 25.9%) and low-risk of relapse groups (relapse rate, 6.7%), respectively. Accordingly, we further stratified 180 (75.6%) and 58 (24.4%) participants under the low- and high-risk of relapse groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in relapse rates between the high- and low-risk groups according to antiviral treatment duration.Approximately 10% of the participants experienced relapses after antiviral treatment, with hematologic malignancy and ulcerative colitis featuring as risk factors. Therefore, prolonged antiviral treatment might not be helpful in preventing GI CMV disease relapse.

Post-CMV Organizing Pneumonia - An Unusual Presentation 10 years after Kidney Transplantation

A 45-year-old gentleman underwent kidney transplantation in March 2010. He remained apparently healthy for the next 10 years when he developed anorexia and weight loss. Diagnostic workup revealed cytomegalovirus (CMV) pneumonia. While viremia resolved within 3 weeks of initiation of valganciclovir, he developed progressive breathlessness and hypoxia on exertion. Imaging of thorax revealed central peri-bronchovascular consolidation and fine reticulations with peripheral sparing. Computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous lung biopsy revealed organizing intra-alveolar exudates, suggestive of organizing pneumonia, with no evidence of active infection on biopsy as well as bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cytology. This atypical pattern of central distribution of opacities is not typical of organizing pneumonia where peripheral subpleural distribution is more common. Patient responded dramatically following escalation of steroids, with complete resolution of infiltrates on follow-up imaging.

Use of Letermovir-Valganciclovir combination as a step-down treatment after Foscarnet for Ganciclovir-resistant CMV infection in kidney transplant recipients

Background

Letermovir (LTV) might be an alternative treatment to nephrotoxic foscarnet (FOS) in Ganciclovir (GCV) resistant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. However, its efficacy in controlling active CMV viremia is unclear, as it is only approved for CMV prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem‐cell transplantation.

Methods

This case series describes 14 kidney transplant recipients (KTR) with moderate‐level GCV resistant CMV infection, treated by different step‐down strategies after initial FOS therapy: (1) Observation without antiviral follow‐up or switch to valganciclovir (VGCV) (pre‐LTV era), and (2) Switch to LTV±VGCV (LTV era).

Results

One patient died under FOS. Thirteen patients were followed under step‐down regimens. All but two patients had ongoing CMV viremia when stopping FOS. In pre‐LTV era, 5/9 (56%) experienced a CMV breakthrough > 10 000 IU/ml calling for another course of FOS, as compared to 1/4 (25%) in the LTV era. Addition of VGCV to LTV at low‐level viral breakthrough, addressing a possible developing resistance against LTV, prevented viral surge in two patients. In the pre‐LTV era, CMV‐related death or graft loss occurred in three of nine (33%), compared to no death or graft loss in the LTV era.

Conclusion

A step‐down strategy combining LTV+VGCV, might allow to safely stop FOS at ongoing low‐level viremia.

Early diagnosis and successful treatment of cytomegalovirus peritonitis in children with primary nephrotic syndrome: case series and literature review

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major pathogen in immunocompromised population and CMV infections in immunocompromised patients cause substantial morbidity and mortality. The common clinical manifestations of CMV infection are pneumonia, hepatitis, colitis and so on, while CMV peritonitis without gut perforation is rare. Reviewing the literature, CMV peritonitis in patients with nephrotic syndrome (NS) had not been reported. Only four cases of CMV peritonitis without gut perforation were reported in adults with other diseases. Two cases were diagnosed by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of ascites while the other two cases by histopathological examination of peritoneal tissue. We report four cases of primary nephrotic syndrome complicated with CMV peritonitis. Four cases all diagnosed by RT-PCR of ascites (659–455 000 copies/mL). We mainly discusses the diagnosis and treatment of CMV peritonitis without gut perforation.

Utility of CMV-Specific Immune Monitoring for the Management of CMV in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Clinical Update

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most important opportunistic infections in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, current techniques used to predict risk for CMV infection fall short. CMV-specific cell mediated immunity (CMI) plays an important role in protecting against CMV infection. There is evidence that assays measuring CMV-CMI might better identify SOT recipients at risk of complications from CMV compared to anti-CMV IgG, which is our current standard of care. Here, we review recently published studies that utilize CMV-CMI, at various points before and after transplantation, to help predict risk and guide the management of CMV infection following organ transplantation. The evidence supports the use of these novel assays to help identify SOT recipients at increased risk and highlights the need for larger prospective trials evaluating these modalities in this high-risk population.

Survey of HCMV in allogenic and autologous stem cell transplantation by real-time PCR in Kermanshah, west of Iran

INTRODUCTION

Human Cytomegalovirus (HCMV) is the most important viral pathogen in people undergoing bone marrow transplantation (BMT). HCMV detection in the early stages makes is possible to save the patients' lives through immediate and timely treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of HCMV using the real-time PCR method in BMT patients in Kermanshah, west of Iran.

METHODS

HCMV monitoring was done in 120 patients who underwent BMT, 38 allogeneic cases and 82 autologous cases, using the ELISA serology test before transplantation. The participants were followed up 100 days after transplantation for HCMV detection in blood samples using real-time PCR. Preemptive therapy started with Ganciclovir and Foscarnet when the viral load was > 200 HCMV DNA copies/ml.

RESULTS

Despite preemptive therapy, infection recurred in less than 1 month. HCMV recurred more frequently in patients undergoing allogenic transplation versus those receiving autologous transplantation. Recurrence was seen in 5 patients receiving allogenic transplantation. HCMV recurrence occurred in five patients with allogeneic transplantation. Twelve patients undergoing allogeneic or autologous transplantation (83%) and a virus load of > 1000 copies/ml showed HCMV-related symptoms. Three patients died, two due to HCMV-related pneumonia and the other one due to a fungal infection.

CONCLUSION

Real-time PCR may be a useful method for quantification and monitoring of HCMV recurrence and may be helpful in choosing more efficient HCMV preemptive treatment in BMT recipients.

The burden of cytomegalovirus infection remains high in high-risk kidney transplant recipients despite six-month valganciclovir prophylaxis

Cytomegalovirus continues to be a concern after transplantation despite prophylaxis regimens. Our aim was to analyse post-prophylaxis primary cytomegalovirus infections among kidney transplant recipients after 6-month valganciclovir prophylaxis and to determine the usefulness of surveillance after prophylaxis. Data from all cytomegalovirus D+/R- kidney transplant recipients from January 2004 to October 2018 at our center who received 6-month prophylaxis with valganciclovir were retrospectively analysed (N = 481). Detailed analyses were performed for 136 patients who were monitored every 2-4 weeks for DNAemia after the discontinuation of prophylaxis. Post-prophylaxis primary cytomegalovirus infection occurred in 182/481 (38%) patients median 264 days after transplantation (IQR: 226-367) and median 84 days after the end of prophylaxis (IQR: 46-187). In 49% patients, cytomegalovirus infection occurred over 3 months after the end of prophylaxis. Cytomegalovirus infection was not associated with lower patient or graft survival and no independent risk factors for infection were found. From patients monitored closely, 71/136 (52%) patients developed post-prophylaxis primary cytomegalovirus infection. Altogether, 52/136 (38%) patients were diagnosed with probable post-prophylaxis cytomegalovirus disease and 19/136 (14%) patients had asymptomatic CMV infection. Recurrent infection occurred in 38/71 (39%) patients. The incidence of post-prophylaxis primary cytomegalovirus infection among D+/R- kidney transplant recipients remains high despite 6-month prophylaxis. Surveillance after prophylaxis was challenging as a considerable portion of the infections occurred late and already symptomatic.

Recent Approaches and Strategies in the Generation of Anti-human Cytomegalovirus Vaccines

Human cytomegalovirus is the largest human herpesvirus and shares many core features of other herpesviruses such as tightly regulated gene expression during genome replication and latency as well as the establishment of lifelong persistence following infection. In contrast to stereotypic clinical syndromes associated with alpha-herpesvirus infections, almost all primary HCMV infections are asymptomatic and acquired early in life in most populations in the world. Although asymptomatic in most individuals, HCMV is a major cause of disease in hosts with deficits in adaptive and innate immunity such as infants who are infected in utero and allograft recipients following transplantation. Congenital HCMV is a commonly acquired infection in the developing fetus that can result in a number of neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Similarly, HCMV is a major cause of disease in allograft recipients in the immediate and late posttransplant period and is thought to be a major contributor to chronic allograft rejection. Even though HCMV induces robust innate and adaptive immune responses, it also encodes a vast array of immune evasion functions that are thought aid in its persistence. Immune correlates of protective immunity that prevent or modify intrauterine HCMV infection remain incompletely defined but are thought to consist primarily of adaptive responses in the pregnant mother, thus making congenital HCMV a potentially vaccine modifiable disease. Similarly, HCMV infection in allograft recipients is often more severe in recipients without preexisting adaptive immunity to HCMV. Thus, there has been a considerable effort to modify HCMV specific immunity in transplant recipient either through active immunization or passive transfer of adaptive effector functions. Although efforts to develop an efficacious vaccine and/or passive immunotherapy to limit HCMV disease have been underway for nearly six decades, most have met with limited success at best. In contrast to previous efforts, current HCMV vaccine development has relied on observations of unique properties of HCMV in hopes of reproducing immune responses that at a minimum will be similar to that following natural infection. However, more recent findings have suggested that immunity following naturally acquired HCMV infection may have limited protective activity and almost certainly, is not sterilizing. Such observations suggest that either the induction of natural immunity must be specifically tailored to generate protective activity or alternatively, that providing targeted passive immunity to susceptible populations could be prove to be more efficacious.

Cytomegalovirus infection after liver transplantation

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) represents the most common opportunistic infection in liver transplant recipients. CMV infections in post liver transplant patients cause significant morbidity and mortality, directly affecting post-transplant outcomes. This review will provide the framework for the surveillance, diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of CMV in the liver transplant population.

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.

Trends in the Medical Complexity and Outcomes of Medicare-insured Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplant in the Years 1998-2014

BACKGROUND

Graft and patient survival following kidney transplant are improving. However, the drivers of this trend are unclear. To gain further insight, we set out to examine concurrent changes in pretransplant patient complexity, posttransplant survival, and cause-specific hospitalization.

METHODS

We identified 101 332 Medicare-insured patients who underwent their first kidney transplant in the United States between the years 1998 and 2014. We analyzed secular trends in (1) posttransplant patient and graft survival and (2) posttransplant hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, infection, and cancer using Cox models with year of kidney transplant as the primary exposure of interest.

RESULTS

Age, dialysis vintage, body mass index, and the prevalence of a number of baseline medical comorbidities increased during the study period. Despite these adverse changes in case mix, patient survival improved: the unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for death in 2014 (versus 1998) were 0.61 (confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.73) and 0.46 (CI, 0.39-0.55), respectively. For graft failure excluding death with a functioning graft, the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted subdistribution HRs in 2014 versus 1998 were 0.4 (CI, 0.25-0.55) and 0.45 (CI, 0.3-0.6), respectively. There was a marked decrease in hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease following transplant between 1998 and 2011, subdistribution HR 0.51 (CI, 0.43-0.6). Hospitalization for infection remained unchanged, while cancer hospitalization increased modestly.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare-insured patients undergoing kidney transplant became increasingly medically complex between 1998 and 2014. Despite this, both patient and graft survival improved during this period. A marked decrease in serious cardiovascular events likely contributed to this positive trend.

Effect of mTOR inhibitors during CMV disease in kidney transplant recipients: Results of a pilot retrospective study

mTOR inhibitors exert a preventive effect on cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in CMV seropositive (R+) kidney transplant recipients, but their impact during the curative treatment of CMV disease in high-risk kidney transplant recipients has not been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of mTOR inhibitors compared with mycophenolic acid in 63 consecutive kidney transplant recipients (80% of D+R-) suffering from CMV disease with a persistent or a recurrent CMV DNAemia. In this monocentric retrospective study, 16 had their treatment converted to mTOR inhibitors and 47 did not. The Kaplan-Meier curves did not show any significant differences in CMV DNAemia eradication (77% vs. 88% respectively; hazard ratio (HR), 1.648 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.913-2.973]; log-rank test, P = .132), DNAemia recurrence (36% vs. 47%; HR, 1.517 [95% CI, 0.574-4.007]; log-rank test, P = .448) and CMV clinical recurrence (17% vs. 27%; HR, 1.375 [95% CI, 0.340-5.552]; log-rank test, P = .677) between patients who received mTOR inhibitors and those who did not. These results were confirmed in uni- and multivariate time-dependent Cox regressions. In summary, conversion from mycophenolic acid to mTOR inhibitors seems inadequate for improving CMV clearance or in better preventing CMV recurrences during severe or persistent CMV disease.

Global estimate of phenotypic and genotypic ganciclovir resistance in cytomegalovirus infections among HIV and organ transplant patients; A systematic review and meta-analysis

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV), an opportunistic pathogen belonging to Herpesviridae family, is considered as one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality among wide variety of patients, particularly in transplant recipients and HIV positive patients. As this virus can be resistant to treatment, frequency of CMV in patients who receive organ transplantation and people suffering from AIDS was studied between 1980 and 2019. Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and the Iranian Database were reviewed, and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (V2.0, Biostat) software analyzed all data. Finally, we used Cochran's Q-statistic to encounter heterogeneity between different studies. Meta-analyses indicated, GCV resistance was 14.1% (95% CI 11.2-17.7); however, in patients suffering from AIDS and organ transplantation were 19.5% (95% CI 14.7-25.4) and 11.4% (95% CI 8.1-15.8), respectively. There were increasing rates in the prevalence of GCV resistance in CMV among transplant recipients, and HIV positive patients. Therefore, evaluation of these refractory infections is beneficial.

Absolute Lymphocyte Count: A Predictor of Recurrent Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background

Recurrent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in solid organ transplant recipients frequently occurs despite effective antiviral therapy. We previously demonstrated that patients with lymphopenia before liver transplantation are more likely to develop posttransplant infectious complications including CMV. The aim of this study was to explore absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) as a predictor of relapse following treatment for CMV disease.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of heart, liver, and kidney transplant recipients treated for an episode of CMV disease. Our primary outcome was time to relapse of CMV within 6 months. Data on potential predictors of relapse including ALC were collected at the time of CMV treatment completion. Univariate and multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with a Cox model. Multiple imputation was used to complete the data.

Results

Relapse occurred in 33 of 170 participants (19.4%). Mean ALC in relapse-free patients was 1.08 ± 0.69 vs 0.73 ± 0.42 × 103 cells/μL in those who relapsed, corresponding to an unadjusted hazard ratio of 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.21; P = .009, n = 133) for every decrease of 100 cells/μL. After adjusting for potential confounders, the association between ALC and relapse remained significant (HR, 1.11 [1.03-1.20]; P = .009).

Conclusions

Low ALC at the time of CMV treatment completion was a strong independent predictor for recurrent CMV disease. This finding is biologically plausible given the known importance of T-cell immunity in maintaining CMV latency. Future studies should consider this inexpensive, readily available marker of host immunity.

The impact of recurrent cytomegalovirus infection on long-term survival in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality following solid organ transplantation (SOT). While recurrent infection occurs in up to 30% of patients, its impact on mortality is unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between recurrent CMV infection and long-term survival in SOT recipients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of SOT recipients who completed treatment for an episode of CMV infection. Patients were followed until death, loss to follow-up or 10 years following CMV treatment completion. Univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HR) were calculated, treating relapse and rejection following CMV as time-varying.

RESULTS

About 79 kidney, 52 heart, 34 liver, and 5 liver-kidney transplant recipients were included. About 62/170 died, at a median of 3.8 years (IQR 0.8-6.6 years). Median follow-up among the 108 survivors was 7.4 years (IQR 3.7-10 years). Recurrent CMV infection occurred in 49/170 (29%), 67% within 6 months of treatment completion. Mortality among those who relapsed was 39% (19/49) vs 36% (43/121) in those who remained relapse-free (unadjusted HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.92-2.75, P = .10). After adjusting for age and transplanted organ, findings were similar (HR 1.68, 95% CI 0.93-3.04, P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality following CMV remains high even in the valganciclovir era. Although our findings suggest a possible increased risk of death among patients with recurrent CMV, these did not reach statistical significance. The complex nature of these patients, multiple potential confounders, and limited statistical power made detection of small effects difficult. Larger prospective studies evaluating the clinical impact of strategies to reduce recurrence are needed.

Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients-Guidelines of the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common opportunistic infections that affect the outcome of solid organ transplantation. This updated guideline from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice provides evidence-based and expert recommendations for screening, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. CMV serology to detect immunoglobulin G remains as the standard method for pretransplant screening of donors and transplant candidates. Antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are the mainstays of CMV prevention. The lack of a widely applicable viral load threshold for diagnosis and preemptive therapy is highlighted, as a result of variability of CMV nucleic acid testing, even in the contemporary era when calibrators are standardized. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir remain as drugs of choice for CMV management. Strategies for managing drug-resistant CMV infection are presented. There is an increasing use of CMV-specific cell-mediated immune assays to stratify the risk of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation, but their role in optimizing CMV prevention and treatment efforts has yet to be demonstrated. Specific issues related to pediatric transplant recipients are discussed.

Use of maintenance therapy and incidence of recurrent Cytomegalovirus DNAemia among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common infection following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Preemptive antiviral therapy is highly effective at halting viral replication and preventing CMV disease; however, recurrence rates after clearance of CMV DNAemia are high (50-70%). Current treatment guidelines recommend maintenance therapy after initial clearance. Yet, the effectiveness of this intervention to prevent recurrence is not well defined.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the impact of maintenance therapy on the probability of recurrent CMV in allogeneic HCT recipients with early CMV reactivation.

STUDY DESIGN

Sixty-six patients with an initial episode of early CMV reactivation who achieved viral clearance in response to preemptive therapy were included. We compared the incidence of recurrent CMV DNAemia in patients who received maintenance therapy vs those who underwent early discontinuation of antiviral therapy.

RESULTS

Recurrence occurred in 47/64 (73%) patients, including 11/14 (79%) patients without maintenance therapy and 36/50 (72%) of patients who received maintenance therapy (P = 0.74). The propensity score adjusted risk ratio for the effect of maintenance therapy on recurrence was 0.89 (95% CI 0.64-1.25; P = 0.41). In a time to event analysis using the unweighted cohort, the 90-day probability of CMV recurrence was similar between patient groups independent of maintenance therapy administration (54% vs 64% for maintenance vs non-maintenance groups, respectively; log-rank P = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that maintenance antiviral therapy does not reduce the incidence of CMV recurrence while off therapy and is of limited value in HCT recipients who have successfully eradicated CMV DNAemia in response to preemptive therapy. Larger studies in this area are needed.

The Third International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid-organ Transplantation

Despite recent advances, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections remain one of the most common complications affecting solid organ transplant recipients, conveying higher risks of complications, graft loss, morbidity, and mortality. Research in the field and development of prior consensus guidelines supported by The Transplantation Society has allowed a more standardized approach to CMV management. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened to expand and revise evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management including prevention, treatment, diagnostics, immunology, drug resistance, and pediatric issues. Highlights include advances in molecular and immunologic diagnostics, improved understanding of diagnostic thresholds, optimized methods of prevention, advances in the use of novel antiviral therapies and certain immunosuppressive agents, and more savvy approaches to treatment resistant/refractory disease. The following report summarizes the updated recommendations.

Indian Antimicrobial Prescription Guidelines in Critically Ill Immunocompromised Patients

How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Sengar M, Chinnaswamy G, Hegde A, Rodrigues C, Soman R, Khilnani GC, Ramasubban S, Desai M, Pandit R, Khasne R, Shetty A, Gilada T, Bhosale S, Kothekar A, Dixit S, Zirpe K, Mehta Y, Pulinilkunnathil JG, Bhagat V, Khan MS, Narkhede AM, Baliga N, Ammapalli S, Bamne S, Turkar S, Bhat KV, Choudhary J, Kumar R, Divatia JV. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine 2019;23(Suppl 1): S64-S96.

A pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship intervention targeting cytomegalovirus viremia in ambulatory solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need for robust antimicrobial stewardship interventions in both ambulatory and solid organ transplant (SOT) populations.

METHODS

A retrospective quasi-experiment was conducted to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship intervention targeting cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia in ambulatory SOT recipients. The intervention consisted of (a) real-time CMV DNA surveillance and result notification conducted by the pharmacist and (b) recommendations for the optimization of drug therapy provided at the time of result notification. The intervention period was compared to a pre-intervention period of usual care. Of 431 adult SOT recipients who had an initial quantifiable CMV viral load in the ambulatory setting, 185 received antiviral induction therapy and were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer patients in the intervention period reached a CMV viral load >10 000 IU/mL immediately prior to treatment (10.6% vs 27.3%; P = 0.004), and a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention period achieved CMV eradication at 21 days (84.5% vs 71.7%; P = 0.038). Additional differences favoring the intervention period were antiviral initiation within 5 days of the first quantifiable CMV DNA (62.4% vs 55.0%; P = 0.02) and time-to-CMV eradication (25.5 vs 28.9 days; P = 0.003). Although not significant, there were also numerical reductions in CMV-related hospital admissions (11.9% vs 19.0%; P = 0.188) and CMV disease (5.9% vs 12.0%; P = 0.151) during the intervention period, as well as fewer episodes of CMV resistance at 1-year (2.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.689).

CONCLUSION

Together, these findings suggest a potential role for pharmacist involvement in CMV surveillance and treatment optimization in ambulatory SOT recipients.

Resistant Cytomegalovirus Infection in Solid-organ Transplantation: Single-center Experience, Literature Review of Risk Factors, and Proposed Preventive Strategies

BACKGROUND

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection causes morbidity and mortality in solid-organ transplant recipients. Drug-resistant CMV is an emerging problem with poor survival outcomes and limited therapeutic options. In this study we comprehensively address the issue of drug resistance in CMV when compared with standard therapies, such as ganciclovir (GCV) and foscarnet.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients diagnosed with CMV after solid-organ transplant at our center between 2013 and 2017, and identified 7 resistant CMV cases. To study risk factors in the published literature, we performed an extensive database search.

RESULTS

All patients had documented UL97 mutations, and 3 patients harbored both UL97 and UL54 mutations. For cases with increasing viral load or failure to achieve clinical improvement despite optimal therapy, genetic resistance testing was carried out. Patients received GCV and foscarnet combination therapy. As an adjunct, CMV immunoglobulin, cidofovir, and leflunomide were added. Risk factors, including donor⁺/recipient^- serostatus, persistent high viral replication, prolonged therapeutic GCV exposure (>2.5 months), and allograft rejection, were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Patients at risk, especially those with D⁺/R^- serostatus, should be judiciously monitored for resistance. Prolonged intravenous GCV exposure increases the risk for development of drug resistance. Therefore, precise guidelines are required for prevention of long-term GCV/VGCV exposure. Investigation regarding interferon-gamma release assay and adoptive transfer of T cells in diagnosed CMV patients is warranted to improve future prophylactic and management strategies against CMV, with a potential to reduce the requirement for available toxic antiviral drugs.

Outcome of Cytomegalovirus Colitis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Different Regimes of Ganciclovir

BACKGROUND Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is responsible for relapse, increased severity, and poor outcome if left untreated. Ganciclovir is the mainstay of treatment but data regarding its use, mode of administration, and duration of treatment is poorly described. We reviewed the practice of treating CMV colitis with different regimes of ganciclovir at a district NHS hospital to compare the clinical outcome. METHODS 35 patients with IBD and concurrent diagnosis of CMV infection were evaluated. The parameters studied were clinical outcome in term of clinical response, length of hospital stay, readmission, or colectomy with three different regimes of ganciclovir, in addition to treatment for IBD. RESULTS 35 patients with IBD (ulcerative colitis = 23, Crohn's disease = 5, Indeterminate colitis = 7) and positive diagnosis of CMV infection were studied. Clinical outcome with two weeks of intravenous (IV) ganciclovir regime was superior than one week of IV ganciclovir and two weeks of oral Valganciclovir in term of clinical response on day 15 (95.8% vs 74%, 24.3%, respectively p = 0.45) and colectomy rate within 3 months (6.25% vs 27.3%, vs 25%, respectively). CONCLUSION CMV colitis is associated with poor outcome in patient with IBD if left untreated. 2 weeks IV ganciclovir was associated with a better outcome than 1 week of IV treatment or oral treatment.

Role of Secondary Prophylaxis With Valganciclovir in the Prevention of Recurrent Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Ganciclovir and valganciclovir are highly effective antiviral drugs with a well-established role in primary prophylaxis and treatment of CMV disease. Our objective in this study was to examine the effect of secondary prophylaxis (SP) on the risk of relapse in SOTRs following an episode of CMV disease.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of SOTRs from 1995 to 2015 and used propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology to control for confounding by indication. A weighted Cox model was created to determine the effect of SP on time to relapse within 1 year of treatment completion.

Results

Fifty-two heart, 34 liver, 79 kidney, and 5 liver-kidney transplant recipients who completed treatment for an episode of CMV infection/disease were included. A total of 120 (70.6%) received SP (median duration, 61 days; range, 5-365) and 39 (23%) relapsed. SP was protective against relapse from 0 to 6 weeks following treatment completion (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.69). However, after 6 weeks, risk of relapse did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.46-2.99).

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that use of SP following treatment of CMV disease did not confer long-term protection against relapse, although it did delay relapse while patients were receiving antivirals. This suggests that SP has limited clinical utility in the overall prevention of recurrent CMV disease.

Risk-guided strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus associated complications after liver transplantation

Aim: We evaluated a risk-guided strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus-associated complications (CMV-ac) after liver transplantation (LT). Patients & methods: Forty liver graft recipients were stratified according to their CMV risk status to prophylactic (high risk, HR and group) or pre-emptive antiviral treatment (intermediate, IR, and low risk, LR and group). A detailed analysis of clinical and virological data was performed. Results: 8/40 patients were classified within the HR, 28/40 within the IR and 4/40 within the LR group. Incidence of CMV viremia was 3/8 (38%) in the HR, 9/28 (32%) in the IR and 0/5 in the LR group. Mortality rate of CMV-ac was 0%. Conclusion: A risk-guided antiviral strategy is effective to prevent severe CMV-ac up to 1 year after LT.

Cytomegalovirus Disease After Liver Transplant-A Description of a Treatment-Resistant Case: A Case Report and Literature Review

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication in solid organ transplant recipients. In patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment, CMV may lead to life-threatening organ complications or graft loss. We describe a case of 31-year-old CMV-seronegative patient who underwent liver transplant from a CMV-seropositive donor with an early acute resistant rejection of the transplanted organ followed by primary CMV infection, despite prophylaxis, and its severe organ complications. Routine treatment of acute allograft rejection through increasing the base immunosuppression and then administering methylprednisolone infusions did not yield significant therapeutic effect. This resulted in anti-thymocyte globulin and ultimately proteasome inhibitor introduction. The cholestasis remitted and liver parameters improved. But 4 weeks later the patient was admitted again due to incorrect liver function tests. Blood tests revealed high CMV viral load, and primary CMV infection was diagnosed. On diagnosis the patient was treated with ganciclovir (GCV) intravenously. As GCV resistance was suspected based on clinical premises, foscarnet (FOS) and leflunomide (LFM) were implemented with concomitant cautious immunosuppression reduction due to the history of recent graft rejection. Despite aggressive treatment introduction, viral clearance was not obtained. Ultimately the patient died due to respiratory distress resulting from lung fibrosis, most probably owing to CMV diseases with Pneumocystis jiroveci coinfection. The presented case proves the importance of strictly following the rules of prophylaxis, especially in patients with a high risk factor of CMV infection development. A quick diagnosis, implementation of appropriate treatment, and fast reaction to the lack of satisfying therapeutic effect can be the key to a successful treatment.