Recent Publications View all
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is notable heterogeneity in the implementation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention practices among CMV-seropositive (R+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. In this prospective observational study, we included 387 CMV R+ KT recipients from 25 Spanish centers. Prevention strategies (antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy) were applied according to institutional protocols at each site. The impact on the 12-month incidence of CMV disease was assessed by Cox regression. Asymptomatic CMV infection, acute rejection, graft function, non-CMV infection, graft loss and all-cause mortality were also analyzed (secondary outcomes). Models were adjusted for a propensity score (PS) analysis for receiving antiviral prophylaxis. Overall, 190 patients (49.1%) received preemptive therapy, 185 (47.8%) antiviral prophylaxis, and 12 (3.1%) no specific intervention. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of CMV disease and asymptomatic infection were 3.6% and 39.3%, respectively. Patients on prophylaxis had lower incidence of CMV disease (PS-adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.79) and asymptomatic infection (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.72) than those managed preemptively, with no significant differences according to the duration of prophylaxis. All cases of CMV disease in the prophylaxis group occurred after prophylaxis discontinuation. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of CMV disease in CMV R+ KT recipients, although such benefit should be balanced with the risk of late-onset disease. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.
Rg score distribution
No data available.