Hannah Imlay1,2, Allison O Dumitriu Carcoana3, Cynthia E Fisher1, Beatrice Wong4, Robert M Rakita1, Daniel P Fishbein5, Ajit P Limaye1. 1. Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Pharmacology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data support use of 6 over 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in donor seropositive/recipient seronegative (D+R-) heart transplant recipients (HTR). METHODS: We retrospectively assessed CMV disease and outcomes in 310 adult HTR between July 5, 2005, and December 30, 2016, at our center. Valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis was given for 3-6 months in the D+R- group. Multivariable models evaluated risk factors for CMV disease in patients who received 3 vs 6 months (±1 month) of prophylaxis, with investigation of inverse probability weighting to correct for confounding variables. RESULTS: The incidence of CMV disease among all patients and the D+R- group was 8.7% (27/310) and 26.5% (22/83), respectively, and included syndrome in 22.2% (6/27) and end-organ involvement in 77.8% (21/27). In a multivariable model, 6 vs 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis was not associated with reduced risk for CMV disease (OR 2.28 [95% CI 0.66, 7.91], P = .19). CMV disease in D+R- HTR was associated with higher rates of hospitalization (87.5% [14/16] vs 6.3% [1/16], P < .001) and for a longer duration than in matched D+R- controls without disease. CONCLUSIONS: Cytomegalovirus disease remains a major cause of morbidity in D+R- HTR. In contrast to documented benefit in D+R- lung and kidney recipients, VGCV duration of 6 months was not associated with a lower incidence of CMV disease in D+R- HTR compared to 3-month duration and should be reconsidered in this patient population.
BACKGROUND: Few data support use of 6 over 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in donor seropositive/recipient seronegative (D+R-) heart transplant recipients (HTR). METHODS: We retrospectively assessed CMV disease and outcomes in 310 adult HTR between July 5, 2005, and December 30, 2016, at our center. Valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis was given for 3-6 months in the D+R- group. Multivariable models evaluated risk factors for CMV disease in patients who received 3 vs 6 months (±1 month) of prophylaxis, with investigation of inverse probability weighting to correct for confounding variables. RESULTS: The incidence of CMV disease among all patients and the D+R- group was 8.7% (27/310) and 26.5% (22/83), respectively, and included syndrome in 22.2% (6/27) and end-organ involvement in 77.8% (21/27). In a multivariable model, 6 vs 3 months of antiviral prophylaxis was not associated with reduced risk for CMV disease (OR 2.28 [95% CI 0.66, 7.91], P = .19). CMV disease in D+R- HTR was associated with higher rates of hospitalization (87.5% [14/16] vs 6.3% [1/16], P < .001) and for a longer duration than in matched D+R- controls without disease. CONCLUSIONS:Cytomegalovirus disease remains a major cause of morbidity in D+R- HTR. In contrast to documented benefit in D+R- lung and kidney recipients, VGCV duration of 6 months was not associated with a lower incidence of CMV disease in D+R- HTR compared to 3-month duration and should be reconsidered in this patient population.
Authors: Carlos Paya; Atul Humar; Ed Dominguez; Kenneth Washburn; Emily Blumberg; Barbara Alexander; Richard Freeman; Nigel Heaton; Mark D Pescovitz Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Scott M Palmer; Ajit P Limaye; Missy Banks; Dianne Gallup; Jeffrey Chapman; E Clinton Lawrence; Jordan Dunitz; Aaron Milstone; John Reynolds; Gordon L Yung; Kevin M Chan; Robert Aris; Edward Garrity; Vincent Valentine; Jonathan McCall; Shein-Chung Chow; Robert Duane Davis; Robin Avery Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Atul Humar; Ajit P Limaye; Emily A Blumberg; Ingeborg A Hauser; Flavio Vincenti; Alan G Jardine; Daniel Abramowicz; Jane A L Ives; Mahdi Farhan; Patrick Peeters Journal: Transplantation Date: 2010-12-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: M Montejo; E Montejo; M Gastaca; A Valdivieso; J R Fernandez; M Testillano; J Gonzalez; J Bustamante; P Ruiz; M J Suarez; A Ventoso; M C Rubio; J Ortiz de Urbina Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Ignacio A Echenique; Michael P Angarone; Jonathan D Rich; Allen S Anderson; Valentina Stosor Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Atul Humar; Carlos Paya; Mark D Pescovitz; Ed Dominguez; Kenneth Washburn; Emily Blumberg; Barbara Alexander; Richard Freeman; Nigel Heaton; Barbara Mueller Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: J K Kirklin; D C Naftel; T B Levine; R C Bourge; G B Pelletier; J O'Donnell; L W Miller; M R Pritzker Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 1994 May-Jun Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Grace Pui-Yun Lee; Richard K Cheng; Alexi Vasbinder; Sixuan Wu; Beatrice Wong; Stephen D Farris; Daniel Fishbein; Jenny Man-Ching Wong Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Margaret R Jorgenson; Sandesh Parajuli; Nicholas Marka; Glen E Leverson; Jeannina A Smith; Didier A Mandelbrot; Jon S Odorico Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-05-25