Diana F Florescu1, Kareem Abu-Elmagd, David F Mercer, Fang Qiu, Andre C Kalil. 1. 1 Transplant Infectious Diseases Program, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. 2 Transplant Surgery Division, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. 3 Transplant Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 4 Biostatistics Department, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. 5 Address correspondence to: Diana F. Florescu, M.D., Transplant Infectious Diseases Program, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985400 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice variation regarding cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention and treatment across intestinal transplantation (IT) programs is unknown. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to IT programs registered with the Intestinal Transplant Association. Proportions were analyzed for categorical variables; means and SDs were analyzed for continuous variables. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of IT programs responded to the survey. For CMV D+/R- recipients, 39.1% programs used universal prophylaxis (UP), 8.7% preemptive strategy (PE), and 52.2% hybrid strategy. For CMV R+ recipients, 45.8% programs used UP, 12.5% PE, 37.1% hybrid strategy, and 4.2% none. For CMV D-/R- recipients, 39.1% programs used UP, 21.7% PE, 26.1% hybrid strategy, and 13% none. Frequency of monitoring for PE was weekly 71.4% of programs, every 2 weeks 21.4%, and monthly 7.1%. For CMV viremia, syndrome and disease, the most common first-line agents used were ganciclovir (100% and 96.2%) and valganciclovir (23.1%) and the second-line agent was foscarnet (73.1% and 84.6%). Immunoglobulins were administered in 65.4% of the programs for pneumonia (69.2%), meningoencephalitis (50%), enteritis (46.2%), colitis (38.5%), syndrome (42.3%), viremia (30.8%), and resistant/refractory infections (11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis and hybrid strategy were the most commonly used. Treatment practices were consistent and mainly involved ganciclovir as first-line agent and foscarnet as second-line agent. The use of immunoglobulins appeared to be more common than in other allografts.
BACKGROUND: Practice variation regarding cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention and treatment across intestinal transplantation (IT) programs is unknown. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to IT programs registered with the Intestinal Transplant Association. Proportions were analyzed for categorical variables; means and SDs were analyzed for continuous variables. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of IT programs responded to the survey. For CMV D+/R- recipients, 39.1% programs used universal prophylaxis (UP), 8.7% preemptive strategy (PE), and 52.2% hybrid strategy. For CMV R+ recipients, 45.8% programs used UP, 12.5% PE, 37.1% hybrid strategy, and 4.2% none. For CMV D-/R- recipients, 39.1% programs used UP, 21.7% PE, 26.1% hybrid strategy, and 13% none. Frequency of monitoring for PE was weekly 71.4% of programs, every 2 weeks 21.4%, and monthly 7.1%. For CMV viremia, syndrome and disease, the most common first-line agents used were ganciclovir (100% and 96.2%) and valganciclovir (23.1%) and the second-line agent was foscarnet (73.1% and 84.6%). Immunoglobulins were administered in 65.4% of the programs for pneumonia (69.2%), meningoencephalitis (50%), enteritis (46.2%), colitis (38.5%), syndrome (42.3%), viremia (30.8%), and resistant/refractory infections (11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis and hybrid strategy were the most commonly used. Treatment practices were consistent and mainly involved ganciclovir as first-line agent and foscarnet as second-line agent. The use of immunoglobulins appeared to be more common than in other allografts.