Antiviral medications to prevent cytomegalovirus disease and early death in recipients of solid-organ transplants: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Clinical Research Excellence, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 06/2005; 365(9477):2105-15. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66553-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly used in recipients of solid-organ transplants with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with cytomegalovirus infection. We undertook a systematic review to investigate whether this approach affects risks of cytomegalovirus disease and death.
Randomised controlled trials of prophylaxis with antiviral medications for cytomegalovirus disease in solid-organ-transplant recipients were identified. Data were combined in meta-analyses by a random-effects model.
Compared with placebo or no treatment, prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir, or valaciclovir significantly reduced the risks of cytomegalovirus disease (19 trials, 1981 patients; relative risk 0.42 [95% CI 0.34-0.52]), cytomegalovirus infection (17 trials, 1786 patients; 0.61 [0.48-0.77]), and all-cause mortality (17 trials, 1838 patients; 0.63 [0.43-0.92]), mainly owing to lower mortality from cytomegalovirus disease (seven trials, 1300 patients; 0.26 [0.08-0.78]). Prophylaxis also lowered the risks of disease caused by herpes simplex or zoster virus, bacterial infections, and protozoal infections, but not fungal infection, acute rejection, or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the risk of cytomegalovirus disease or all-cause mortality by organ transplanted or cytomegalovirus serostatus; no conclusions were possible for cytomegalovirus-negative recipients of negative organs. In trials of direct comparisons, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus disease. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir.
Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces the risk of cytomegalovirus disease and associated mortality in recipients of solid-organ transplants. This approach should be used routinely in cytomegalovirus-positive recipients and in cytomegalovirus-negative recipients of organs positive for the virus.


Available from: Elisabeth M Hodson, May 10, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the last years increasing evidence implies that human cytomegalovirus (CMV) can be attributed to human malignancies arising from numerous tissues. In this perspective, we will review and discuss the potential mechanisms through which CMV infection may contribute to brain tumors by affecting tumor cell initiation, progression and metastasis formation. Recent evidence also suggests that anti-CMV treatment results in impaired tumor growth of CMV positive xenografts in animal models and potentially increased survival in CMV positive glioblastoma patients. Based on these observations and the high tumor promoting capacity of this virus, the classical and novel antiviral therapies against CMV should be revisited as they may represent a great promise for halting tumor progression and lower cancer deaths.
  • [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.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared the pre-emptive and the prophylactic strategies used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients and searched for associated predictive factors. Seventy-three orthotopic liver-transplant recipients who had received a transplant before November 2005 were given ganciclovir IV pre-emptively (group I) and 56 recipients who had received a transplant after November 2005 were given prophylactic valganciclovir for 3 months (group II). Demographic and biochemical parameters did not statistically vary between the groups at baseline. Monitoring of CMV DNAemia was similar in both groups. Forty-two (57.5%) patients presented with CMV infection in group I and 18 (32.1%) in group II (P < 0.004). CMV DNAemia was first detected at a median of 33 days post-transplant in group I and at 98.5 days in group II (P < 0.003), but viral loads were not significantly different. The overall incidence of CMV disease was 9.6% in group I versus 7.1% in group II (ns). Thirty-five (47.9%) patients presented with biopsy-proven acute rejection in group I and 13 (23.2%) in group II (P = 0.004). Forty (55%) patients in group I and 25 (44.6%) in group II presented with de novo post-transplant diabetes (P = 0.057). At 1-year post-transplant, global survival curves were not significantly different. Independent factors associated with CMV reactivation were an absence of CMV prophylaxis, CMV serological status of the donor, cold ischemia time, and HLA A + B + DR compatibility. CMV prophylaxis is efficacious and can prevent safely the direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive orthotopic liver-transplant recipients. J. Med. Virol. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Journal of Medical Virology 02/2015; 87(5). DOI:10.1002/jmv.23964 · 2.22 Impact Factor