Prophylaxis and treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of solid organ transplants: current approach and future challenges.

Division of Geographic Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 4.87). 09/2007; 20(4):419-24. DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32821f6026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cytomegalovirus infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in solid-organ transplant recipients, in terms of cytomegalovirus disease itself and the associated outcomes of organ rejection and death. This review focuses on recent literature concerning prevention and treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in this population.
Two major strategies for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients - preemptive and prophylactic treatment - are reviewed. Both strategies result in a lower incidence of cytomegalovirus disease when compared to a 'wait and treat' approach, and are generally considered cost-effective. Neither prophylaxis nor preemption has yet been shown to be superior. Newer trials are also reviewed, which are beginning to evaluate protocols of preemption or prophylaxis representative of current practice, as well as to explore alternative dosing strategies, the benefits of cytomegalovirus immune globulin, and the potential benefit of a longer course of prophylaxis. Concerns for the selection of ganciclovir-resistant strains of cytomegalovirus are also addressed.
The consensus is that there is benefit for the treatment of solid-organ transplant patients with an antiviral agent before clinical evidence of cytomegalovirus disease. So far, there has been no demonstration of the superiority of prophylactic or preemptive regimens, nor has the exact nature and dosing of the oral antiviral agent of choice been established.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is some controversy regarding the exact cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia titer that should be used as a guideline for preemptive anti-CMV therapy. We performed 634 consecutive kidney transplantations between January 2000 and June 2007. Preemptive therapy employed intravenous gancyclovir treatment when the CMV antigenemia titer was >or=50/4x10(5) leukocytes after kidney transplantation. The 634 recipients were allocated into 2 groups according to the peak CMV antegenemia: group A, CMV antigenemia titer<50/4x10(5) (n=550); and group B, >or=50/40x10(5) (n=84). Among the 634 recipients, 264 were positive for CMV antigenemia, and 61 developed symptomatic CMV infections. The incidence of symptomatic CMV infections in group B was significantly higher than in group A. Two cases in both groups developed tissue-proven CMV disease: group A CMV colitis and CMV nephritis, and group B, 2 cases of CMV colitis. Graft and patient survival rates in groups A and B at 5 years posttransplantation were not different. The authors concluded that a CMV antigenemia titer of >or=50/4x10(5) leukocytes can be considered an appropriate guideline for preemptive anti-CMV therapy.
    Transplantation Proceedings 04/2010; 42(3):804-10. · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objectives of this epidemiological, prospective study were to describe the characteristics of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in heart transplant (HT) recipients and to identify the variables that may influence the development of CMV viremia and CMV disease in these patients. HT recipients ≥18 years of age (n=199) were included in the study. Variables studied included CMV serostatus, immunosuppressive treatment, and administration of anti-CMV prophylaxis. The mean age of the population was 52 years, and 84% were males. Immunosuppressive regimens were administered as induction therapy to 92.5% of patients; 88.5% of patients received calcineurin inhibitors as maintenance therapy. Anti-CMV treatment was given to 59% of 199 patients as prophylaxis (70%), preemptive therapy (10%), or to treat CMV infection (20%). Overall, 43% of patients had at least 1 positive viremia test. No patient with a high-risk serostatus (donor+/recipient-) receiving prophylaxis developed CMV syndrome, and only 2.5% of 199 patients developed CMV invasive disease. Multivariate analysis showed that having a positive donor CMV serostatus was associated with an increased risk of developing CMV viremia (P<0.012), while use of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors was associated with a decreased risk (P=0.005). In a population of HT recipients, the CMV infection rate was similar to that seen in previous studies, but the progression to overt CMV disease was very low. Having a CMV-positive donor was identified as an independent risk factor for developing CMV viremia, while the use of mTOR inhibitors was protective against viremia.
    Transplant Infectious Disease 10/2010; 13(2):136-44. · 1.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important infection in lung transplant recipients. Center-to-center variation in preventive and treatment strategies is unknown. An electronic survey was sent to 102 lung transplant programs registered with the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation and United Network for Organ Sharing. Fifty-nine (58%) programs responded to the survey. For CMV prevention (D+/R-), 56 of the 59 (94.9%) programs used prophylaxis and two (3.4%) of them used preemptive therapy. For R+ patients, 86.4% used prophylaxis and 13.6% used preemptive strategy. Duration of prophylaxis was extremely variable ranging from 3 months to indefinite. Adjunctive prophylactic strategies included routine viral monitoring (51% D+/R-; 44% R+) and CMV immunoglobulin (32% D+/R-; 14% R+). The medication used for prophylaxis was valganciclovir with approximately half starting with intravenous ganciclovir. 9 of the 59 (15.2%) centers reported using specific CMV prophylaxis in D-/R- patients. Methods for viral monitoring included peripheral blood polymerase chain reaction, antigenemia, bronchoalveolar lavage viral culture, and bronchoalveolar lavage polymerase chain reaction. For treatment of CMV viremia, valganciclovir or intravenous ganciclovir were used. A total of 47.5% of centers routinely decreased immunosuppression at the time of viremia. Secondary antiviral prophylaxis was used routinely by 36 of the 59 (61%) centers. Although prophylaxis is the most commonly used preventive strategy, significant variation exists in the way it is implemented. Specifically, duration of prophylaxis is extremely variable. Uniform international guidelines would be of value in this population.
    Transplantation 09/2010; 90(6):672-6. · 3.78 Impact Factor