Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients
ABSTRACT 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.
To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
SourceAvailable from: Said A. Al-Busafi
Dataset: Care of the liver transplant patient
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This review summarizes recent updates in the prevention of infections in solid organ transplant patients using antimicrobial prophylaxis that are pertinent for the intensive care physician.Current Opinion in Critical Care 06/2014; DOI:10.1097/MCC.0000000000000108 · 3.18 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cytomegalovirus (CMV), a problematic virus in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) such as liver, can worsen overall mortality and transplant outcome, so its prevention and treatment is a key of success in such patients. This study is aimed to compare the efficacy of ganciclovir (GCV) and valganciclovir (VGC) for prevention and treatment of infection with CMV. After sensitive and systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and other available databases, both prospective and retrospective studies on effect of VGC and GCV in prevention and treatment of CMV disease among SOTR, which had our study criteria, were included. The pooled risk estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Among 1324 title, 19 studies were included. In 11 prophylactic studies (2368 patients), the pooled risk of CMV disease (VGC relative to GCV) was 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.49 and in studies of liver transplant recipients, 1.53, 95% CI: 0.86-2.70. Rate of viremia eradication in VGC to GCV was 1.05, 95% CI: 0.97-1.13. In 3 treatment studies (422 patients), rate of successful treatment in VGC to GCV was 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06 and viremia eradication 0.95, CI 95% 0.77-1.16. All these values did not show statistically significantly differences between GCV and VGC. It can be concluded that VGC as an alternative to GCV can be used with equal efficacy in prevention and treatment of CMV disease in SOTR.