BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection continues to negatively affect outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients, despite the advent of strategies for preemptive surveillance and prophylaxis. The impact is especially great for CMV seronegative recipients of donor seropositive organs, who typically lack the ability to control CMV infection at the time of transplantation. METHODS: We reviewed episodes of CMV DNAemia in a modern cohort of kidney transplant recipients over a 3-year period at a high-volume transplant center to investigate the frequency of DNAemia during antiviral prophylaxis. RESULTS: Despite receipt of antiviral prophylaxis per current guidelines, 75 cases of CMV DNAemia were observed in the first 100 days after transplantation. For high risk patients, median time to DNAemia was 75 days after transplantation, and the majority of patients had experienced dose-reduction of valganciclovir due to renal insufficiency. Review of CMV seropositive intermediate risk patients demonstrated DNAemia occurring earlier after transplantation compared with high risk patients with a median time of 64 days (P = .029). The impact of valganciclovir dose adjustment was less notable in the intermediate risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines recommend beginning routine surveillance for CMV after the completion of antiviral prophylaxis. Our findings suggest that closer monitoring may be beneficial, especially for high risk patients at risk for DNAemia. Patients requiring dose adjustment of valganciclovir due to renal insufficiency may be at increased risk for CMV DNAemia. Improved methods for CMV prophylaxis and evaluation of immunologic risk for CMV DNAemia and disease are needed to improve patient outcomes after kidney transplantation.
BACKGROUND:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection continues to negatively affect outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients, despite the advent of strategies for preemptive surveillance and prophylaxis. The impact is especially great for CMV seronegative recipients of donor seropositive organs, who typically lack the ability to control CMV infection at the time of transplantation. METHODS: We reviewed episodes of CMV DNAemia in a modern cohort of kidney transplant recipients over a 3-year period at a high-volume transplant center to investigate the frequency of DNAemia during antiviral prophylaxis. RESULTS: Despite receipt of antiviral prophylaxis per current guidelines, 75 cases of CMV DNAemia were observed in the first 100 days after transplantation. For high risk patients, median time to DNAemia was 75 days after transplantation, and the majority of patients had experienced dose-reduction of valganciclovir due to renal insufficiency. Review of CMV seropositive intermediate risk patients demonstrated DNAemia occurring earlier after transplantation compared with high risk patients with a median time of 64 days (P = .029). The impact of valganciclovir dose adjustment was less notable in the intermediate risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines recommend beginning routine surveillance for CMV after the completion of antiviral prophylaxis. Our findings suggest that closer monitoring may be beneficial, especially for high risk patients at risk for DNAemia. Patients requiring dose adjustment of valganciclovir due to renal insufficiency may be at increased risk for CMV DNAemia. Improved methods for CMV prophylaxis and evaluation of immunologic risk for CMV DNAemia and disease are needed to improve patient outcomes after kidney transplantation.
Authors: R R Razonable; A Rivero; A Rodriguez; J Wilson; J Daniels; G Jenkins; T Larson; W C Hellinger; J R Spivey; C V Paya Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2001-10-23 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: B Dedeoglu; A E de Weerd; L Huang; A W Langerak; F J Dor; M Klepper; W Verschoor; D Reijerkerk; C C Baan; N H R Litjens; M G H Betjes Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Raymund R Razonable; Anders Åsberg; Halvor Rollag; John Duncan; Denis Boisvert; Joseph D Yao; Angela M Caliendo; Atul Humar; Tri D Do Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
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: J M Schaenman; M Rossetti; T Sidwell; V Groysberg; G Sunga; Y Korin; E Liang; X Zhou; B Abdalla; E Lum; S Bunnapradist; T Pham; G Danovitch; E F Reed Journal: Hum Immunol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 2.850
Authors: Martin Stern; Hans Hirsch; Alexia Cusini; Christian van Delden; Oriol Manuel; Pascal Meylan; Katia Boggian; Nicolas J Mueller; Michael Dickenmann Journal: Transplantation Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Richard Ahn; Joanna Schaenman; Zachary Qian; Harry Pickering; Victoria Groysberg; Maura Rossetti; Megan Llamas; Alexander Hoffmann; David Gjertson; Mario Deng; Suphamai Bunnapradist; Elaine F Reed Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Harry Pickering; Subha Sen; Janice Arakawa-Hoyt; Kenichi Ishiyama; Yumeng Sun; Rajesh Parmar; Richard S Ahn; Gemalene Sunga; Megan Llamas; Alexander Hoffmann; Mario Deng; Suphamai Bunnapradist; Joanna M Schaenman; David W Gjertson; Maura Rossetti; Lewis L Lanier; Elaine F Reed Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2021-11-08