Multicenter study of universal prophylaxis versus pre-emptive therapy for patients at intermediate risk (R+) for CMV following heart transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Heart transplant (HT) recipients with prior exposure to cytomegalovirus (CMV R+) are considered intermediate risk for CMV-related complications. Consensus guidelines allow for either universal prophylaxis (UP) or preemptive therapy (PET) (serial CMV testing) approaches to CMV prevention in such patients. Whether an optimal approach to mitigate CMV related risks exists in this setting remains uncertain. We therefore assessed the utility of PET as compared to UP in CMV R+ HT recipients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all CMV R+ HT recipients from 6 U.S. centers between 2010 and 2018 was performed. The primary outcome was the development of CMV DNAemia or end-organ disease resulting in the initiation/escalation of anti-CMV therapy. The secondary outcome was CMV-related hospitalization. Additional outcomes included incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) ≥ grade 2R, death, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), and leukopenia. RESULTS: Of 563 CMV R+ HT recipients, 344 (61.1%) received UP. PET was associated with increased risk for the primary (adjusted HR 3.95, 95% CI: 2.65-5.88, p < .001) and secondary (adjusted HR 3.19, 95% CI: 1.47-6.94, p = .004) outcomes, and with increased ACR ≥ grade 2R (PET 59.4% vs. UP 34.4%, p < .001). Incidence of detectable CAV was similar at 1 year (PET 8.2% vs. UP 9.5%, p = .698). UP was associated with increased incidence of leukopenia within 6 months post-HT (PET 34.7% vs. UP 43.6%, p = .036). CONCLUSION: The use of a PET CMV prophylaxis strategy in intermediate risk HT recipients associated with increased risk of CMV infection and CMV-related hospitalization, and may associate with worse post-HT graft outcomes.

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

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

CMV infection management in transplant patients in Italy.

Transplant represents an effective strategy in the management of chronic organ dysfunction. Nonetheless, life threatening risks remain, especially in the post-transplant; among them, human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major concern, currently causing active infections in at least one-third of transplant recipients. Microbiologist and transplant scientific societies redefined guidance on CMV disease prevention and the best use for universal prophylaxis and pre-emptive virological monitoring. Developments in molecular diagnostic supported the spread of the pre-emptive strategy, and quantitative Real Time-PCR assays has unravelled the potential of viral load measurement as a predictor of the infection development in CMV post-transplant management. However, despite the WHO 1st CMV International Standard, the standardization of diagnostic and clinical practice has been limited by the absence of algorithms for calculating conversion factor to International Units and the lack of shared monitoring procedure, both at national and international level. At a regional level, the Italian scientific societies, AMCLI (Italian Clinical Microbiologist Association), SITO (Organ Transplant Italian Society), GITMO (Italian Group for Bone Marrow Transplant), recently tried to define a consensus for post-transplant monitoring. The concerted practice encompasses molecular quantitative PCR assays technical aspects and endorses the relevance of immunologic monitoring for improvement in patient risk stratification and prognosis. Here, we provide an overview of the state of the art of CMV management strategies, with a specific focus on the clinical practices and on the scientific societies' initiatives that aim to implement international standardization guidelines at a national level.

Clinical values of preemptive therapy versus universal prophylaxis in the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection post kidney transplantation: a systematic review and Meta-analysis / 中华泌尿外科杂志

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of preemptive therapy versus universal prophylaxis in prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection post kidney transplantation.Methods Databases including the PubMed,EMbase,sinoMed,Web of Knowledge,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) and other databases were searched up to December 2016 for controlled clinical studies which involved preemptive therapy and universal prophylaxis.Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95％ confidence interval (CI) was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software to synthesize the results.Results 11 studies with a total of 2 560 patients were included in this Metaanalysis.Results showed that universal prophylaxis was superior to preemptive therapy in the total CMV infection and CMV disease(OR =3.38,95％ CI 2.13-5.36,P ＜0.001;OR =1.69,95％ CI 1.14-2.48,P =0.008),otherwise it was on the contrary in the late onset CMV infection and CMV disease (OR =0.07,95％ CI0.02 ～0.19,P ＜ 0.001;OR =0.08,95％ CI 0.01-0.60,P =0.01).However,there was no significance in the short outcomes between the two groups including 1-year recipient and graft survival and renal function.In addition,preemptive therapy was superior to universal prophylaxis in the adverse events (OR =0.33,95 ％ CI 0.15-0.72,P =0.006).Conclusions There was no significant difference between the two prophylaxis in the prevention of CMV infection,but preemptive therapy was superior to universal prophylaxis in the prevention of anti-virus adverse effects.

Clinical correlates of pp65 antigenemia monitoring in the first months of post kidney transplant in patients undergoing universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy

Abstract Introduction: Human cytomegalovirus is a major cause of morbidity in kidney transplant patients. Objectives: We aimed to study viral replication and serological response in the first months post kidney transplant in patients undergoing universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy and correlate the findings with the clinical course of Human cytomegalovirus infection. Patients and methods: Independent from the clinical strategy adopted for managing Human cytomegalovirus infection, prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy, the pp65 antigenemia assay and serological response were assessed on the day of transplantation, and then weekly during the first three months of post-transplant. Results: From the 32 transplant recipients, 16 were positive for pp65 antigenemia, with a similar incidence rate in each group. There were no positive results in the first three weeks of monitoring; the positivity rate peaked at week eight. There was a trend for a higher and earlier frequency of positivity in the universal prophylaxis group in which the course of the Human cytomegalovirus infection was also more severe. Despite the differences in clinical picture and in the initial immunosuppressant schedule, the serological response was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Routine monitoring during the first three post-transplant months has a positive impact on the early detection of Human cytomegalovirus viral replication allowing for timely treatment in order to reduce morbidity of the disease. The strategy of universal therapy employing intravenous ganciclovir was associated to a worse clinical course of the Human cytomegalovirus infection suggesting that the use of >10 cells/2 × 105 leukocytes as a cut-off in this setting may be inappropriate.

Clinical correlates of pp65 antigenemia monitoring in the first months of post kidney transplant in patients undergoing universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Human cytomegalovirus is a major cause of morbidity in kidney transplant patients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study viral replication and serological response in the first months post kidney transplant in patients undergoing universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy and correlate the findings with the clinical course of Human cytomegalovirus infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Independent from the clinical strategy adopted for managing Human cytomegalovirus infection, prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy, the pp65 antigenemia assay and serological response were assessed on the day of transplantation, and then weekly during the first three months of post-transplant. RESULTS: From the 32 transplant recipients, 16 were positive for pp65 antigenemia, with a similar incidence rate in each group. There were no positive results in the first three weeks of monitoring; the positivity rate peaked at week eight. There was a trend for a higher and earlier frequency of positivity in the universal prophylaxis group in which the course of the Human cytomegalovirus infection was also more severe. Despite the differences in clinical picture and in the initial immunosuppressant schedule, the serological response was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Routine monitoring during the first three post-transplant months has a positive impact on the early detection of Human cytomegalovirus viral replication allowing for timely treatment in order to reduce morbidity of the disease. The strategy of universal therapy employing intravenous ganciclovir was associated to a worse clinical course of the Human cytomegalovirus infection suggesting that the use of >10 cells/2×105 leukocytes as a cut-off in this setting may be inappropriate.

Prevention strategies for cytomegalovirus disease and long-term outcomes in the high-risk transplant patient (D+/R-): experience from the RESITRA-REIPI cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-negative recipients of a graft from a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-) are at high risk of CMV disease. Current preventive strategies include universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive therapy (PT). However, the best strategy to prevent CMV disease and achieve better long-term outcomes remains a matter of debate. METHODS: We analyzed the incidence of CMV disease and long-term outcomes including graft dysfunction and patient mortality at 5 years after transplantation with both preventive strategies. High-risk (D+/R-) kidney and liver transplant recipients from the RESITRA cohort were included. RESULTS: Of 2410 kidney or liver transplant patients, 195 (8.3%) were D+/R-. The final cohort included 58 liver and 102 kidney recipients. UP was given in 92 patients and 68 received PT; 10.9% and 36.8% developed CMV disease, respectively (P < 0.01). The independent risk factors for CMV disease were PT strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-6.9), kidney transplantation (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4-9.9), and cyclosporine immunosuppression (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.7). PT strategy was also a risk factor for CMV disease in both liver transplantation (HR, 11.0; 95% CI, 1.2-98.7) and kidney transplantation (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0), independently. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was a risk factor for graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-9.0). Nevertheless, no significant differences were seen in either graft dysfunction or mortality between the 2 strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The study supports the benefit of the UP strategy to prevent CMV disease in D+/R- liver or kidney transplant patients. The development of CMV replication during the first 2 years after transplantation was associated with graft dysfunction at 5 years after transplantation.

Increased incidence of herpes zoster in the setting of cytomegalovirus preemptive therapy after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster (HZ) is a common infectious disease after kidney transplantation (KT). The incidence of HZ may increase during cytomegalovirus (CMV) preemptive therapy. We therefore evaluated the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of HZ after KT, according to the type of CMV prophylaxis used. METHODS: We retrospectively established a cohort of KT recipients who underwent transplantation from June 2008 to May 2010. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to CMV prophylaxis regimen: Group A (preemptive therapy), Group B (universal prophylaxis <3 months), and Group C (universal prophylaxis >3 months). The incidence rate of HZ was compared in each group, and risk factors for HZ were identified. RESULTS: The incidence rate of HZ was 46.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.4-66.5) per 1000 person-years. The incidence rate was higher in Group A than in Group C (80.0 vs. 13.0 per 1000 person-years; P = 0.001). Median onset time of HZ after KT was shorter in Group A than in Group B (0.9 vs. 9.9 months; P < 0.001) and Group C (0.9 vs. 14.8 months; P = 0.008). Post-herpetic neuralgia occurred in 7 patients (23%). No visceral involvement or death was related to HZ. By multivariate analysis, only female gender (corrected relative risk 1.59; 95% CI 1.09-2.00) was independently associated with HZ development. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of CMV preemptive therapy, a differentiated varicella zoster virus-specific prophylaxis might be necessary for patients with HZ risk factors.