BACKGROUND: We compared the use of intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin (CMVIG) as a pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Of 59 CMV-seropositive adult heart transplant recipients enrolled in Group 1, 37 tested positive for pp65 antigen within 12 weeks post-transplantation. These patients were randomized to receive either intravenous ganciclovir (n = 23) or CMVIG (n = 14). Group 2 included 133 CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients who were not tested for CMV antigenemia and who received no anti-CMV therapy. RESULTS:CMV disease developed in 0 of 59 patients from Group 1, and in 27 of 133 patients (20%) in Group 2 (p = 0.0001). The incidence of superinfections was lower in Group 1 (0.28 +/- 0.46) than in Group 2 (1.10 +/- 1.33) (p = 0.01). The 2 groups did not differ with regard to incidence of rejection (0.7 +/- 0.9 in Group 1 vs 1.0 +/- 1.2 in Group 2; p = NS), transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (14% in Group 1 vs 16% in Group 2; p = NS) or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (0% in Group 1 vs 2% in Group 2; p = NS). Ganciclovir and CMVIG therapies were associated with similar rates of rejection (0.52 +/- 0.6 with ganciclovir vs 0.50 +/- 0.60 with CMVIG; p = NS), superinfection (0.30 +/- 0.48 with ganciclovir vs 0.25 +/- 0.46 with CMVIG; p = NS), and transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (13% with ganciclovir vs 14% with CMVIG, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The pre-emptive anti-CMV approach is superior to prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients. Both ganciclovir and CMVIG are equally effective.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We compared the use of intravenous ganciclovir and cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin (CMVIG) as a pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Of 59 CMV-seropositive adult heart transplant recipients enrolled in Group 1, 37 tested positive for pp65 antigen within 12 weeks post-transplantation. These patients were randomized to receive either intravenous ganciclovir (n = 23) or CMVIG (n = 14). Group 2 included 133 CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients who were not tested for CMV antigenemia and who received no anti-CMV therapy. RESULTS: CMV disease developed in 0 of 59 patients from Group 1, and in 27 of 133 patients (20%) in Group 2 (p = 0.0001). The incidence of superinfections was lower in Group 1 (0.28 +/- 0.46) than in Group 2 (1.10 +/- 1.33) (p = 0.01). The 2 groups did not differ with regard to incidence of rejection (0.7 +/- 0.9 in Group 1 vs 1.0 +/- 1.2 in Group 2; p = NS), transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (14% in Group 1 vs 16% in Group 2; p = NS) or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (0% in Group 1 vs 2% in Group 2; p = NS). Ganciclovir and CMVIG therapies were associated with similar rates of rejection (0.52 +/- 0.6 with ganciclovir vs 0.50 +/- 0.60 with CMVIG; p = NS), superinfection (0.30 +/- 0.48 with ganciclovir vs 0.25 +/- 0.46 with CMVIG; p = NS), and transplant coronary artery disease at 1 year (13% with ganciclovir vs 14% with CMVIG, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The pre-emptive anti-CMV approach is superior to prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive heart transplant recipients. Both ganciclovir and CMVIG are equally effective.
Authors: Moritz B Immohr; Payam Akhyari; Charlotte Böttger; Arash Mehdiani; Hannan Dalyanoglu; Ralf Westenfeld; Daniel Oehler; Igor Tudorache; Hug Aubin; Artur Lichtenberg; Udo Boeken Journal: Immun Inflamm Dis Date: 2021-09-15