BACKGROUND: Both prophylactic and preemptive oral valganciclovir therapy are effective for the management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) postrenal transplantation in the short term. The long-term effect of either strategy is less well defined. METHODS: We analyzed the data on 115 adult recipients previously enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled trial of prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for CMV. The primary outcome was a composite of freedom from acute rejection, graft loss, or death. Secondary outcomes included individual primary outcomes, posttransplant cardiovascular events, new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation, achievement of goal blood pressure, change in body mass index, interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy, and change in renal function. The analysis period was a minimum of 48-month posttransplant or a date of death or graft loss, whichever was earlier. RESULTS: The primary outcome was similar between groups (83% prophylactic vs. 81% preemptive, P=0.754). The secondary outcomes showed similarities between the prophylactic and preemptive groups. Four patients in the prophylactic group (8%) compared with none in the preemptive group (0%) died with a functioning graft, P=0.043. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of sample size, our data suggest that either strategy for the management of CMV immediately after transplantation seems effective for patient and graft survival in the long term. CMV management is one of the many therapeutic strategies incorporated into a renal transplantation protocol, which often differs among institutions, and the decision as to which approach to use remains center- and resource-specific. The increased incidence of death in the prophylactic group requires further investigation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Both prophylactic and preemptive oral valganciclovir therapy are effective for the management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) postrenal transplantation in the short term. The long-term effect of either strategy is less well defined. METHODS: We analyzed the data on 115 adult recipients previously enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled trial of prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for CMV. The primary outcome was a composite of freedom from acute rejection, graft loss, or death. Secondary outcomes included individual primary outcomes, posttransplant cardiovascular events, new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation, achievement of goal blood pressure, change in body mass index, interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy, and change in renal function. The analysis period was a minimum of 48-month posttransplant or a date of death or graft loss, whichever was earlier. RESULTS: The primary outcome was similar between groups (83% prophylactic vs. 81% preemptive, P=0.754). The secondary outcomes showed similarities between the prophylactic and preemptive groups. Four patients in the prophylactic group (8%) compared with none in the preemptive group (0%) died with a functioning graft, P=0.043. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of sample size, our data suggest that either strategy for the management of CMV immediately after transplantation seems effective for patient and graft survival in the long term. CMV management is one of the many therapeutic strategies incorporated into a renal transplantation protocol, which often differs among institutions, and the decision as to which approach to use remains center- and resource-specific. The increased incidence of death in the prophylactic group requires further investigation.
Authors: J A Khoury; G A Storch; D L Bohl; R M Schuessler; S M Torrence; M Lockwood; M Gaudreault-Keener; M J Koch; B W Miller; K L Hardinger; M A Schnitzler; D C Brennan Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-06-19 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: A Asberg; A Humar; H Rollag; A G Jardine; H Mouas; M D Pescovitz; D Sgarabotto; M Tuncer; I L Noronha; A Hartmann Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Carmen Díaz-Pedroche; Carlos Lumbreras; Rafael San Juan; Dolores Folgueira; Amado Andrés; Juan Delgado; Juan Carlos Meneu; José María Morales; Almudena Moreno-Elola; Susana Hernando; Enrique Moreno-González; José María Aguado Journal: Transplantation Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Daniel C Brennan; John A Daller; Kathleen D Lake; Diane Cibrik; Domingo Del Castillo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Hjelmesaeth; S Sagedal; A Hartmann; H Rollag; T Egeland; M Hagen; K P Nordal; T Jenssen Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2004-08-27 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Oscar Len; Joan Gavaldà; José María Aguado; Núria Borrell; Carlos Cervera; José Miguel Cisneros; Valentín Cuervas-Mons; Mercè Gurguí; Pilar Martin-Dávila; Miguel Montejo; Patricia Muñoz; Germán Bou; Jordi Carratalà; Julián Torre-Cisneros; Albert Pahissa Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Tomas Reischig; Martin Kacer; Pavel Jindra; Ondrej Hes; Daniel Lysak; Mirko Bouda Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Krista L Lentine; Bertram L Kasiske; Andrew S Levey; Patricia L Adams; Josefina Alberú; Mohamed A Bakr; Lorenzo Gallon; Catherine A Garvey; Sandeep Guleria; Philip Kam-Tao Li; Dorry L Segev; Sandra J Taler; Kazunari Tanabe; Linda Wright; Martin G Zeier; Michael Cheung; Amit X Garg Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Daniel S Owers; Angela C Webster; Giovanni F M Strippoli; Kathy Kable; Elisabeth M Hodson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-02-28
Authors: Tomas Reischig; Petra Hribova; Pavel Jindra; Ondrej Hes; Mirko Bouda; Vladislav Treska; Ondrej Viklicky Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: W James Chon; Pradeep V Kadambi; Chang Xu; Yolanda T Becker; Piotr Witkowski; Kenneth Pursell; Brenna Kane; Michelle A Josephson Journal: Case Rep Nephrol Dial Date: 2015-04-01