Literature DB >> 35748517

Early versus delayed initiation of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis after liver transplant.

Mackenzie Magid1, Jennifer Byrns1, Jennifer Gommer1, Zidanyue Yang2, Hui-Jie Lee2, Matt Harris1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Delaying cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis after liver transplantation may limit medication side effects and reduce inpatient drug costs. The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence of CMV DNAemia in liver transplant recipients who initiated prophylaxis immediately after transplant (early prophylaxis) and those who initiated prophylaxis on postoperative day 7 or at discharge, whichever came first (delayed prophylaxis). STUDY
DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center study of adult liver transplant recipients between February 2017 and February 2019. Patients who were at low risk for CMV (D-/R-), received dual organs, had a history of invasive CMV disease, or received prophylaxis with an agent other than ganciclovir/valganciclovir were excluded. Chart review of patient profiles was completed 9 months following the transplant, and the primary end point was the first positive CMV PCR within that timeframe. Cumulative incidence of CMV DNAemia was estimated by adjusting for competing events for early and delayed prophylaxis groups. The subdistribution hazard model was utilized to examine the effect of the timing of prophylaxis on CMV DNAemia while accounting for CMV serostatus. Secondary end points included peak quantifiable viral load, time to detection, and incidence of tissue-invasive disease.
RESULTS: A total of 119 patients (60 early prophylaxis and 59 delayed prophylaxis) were included, and baseline demographics were similar except for sex. Twenty patients in the early group and 17 in the delayed group developed CMV DNAemia within 9 months of transplant with a cumulative incidence of 31.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 20%, 44%) and 28.8% (95% CI 18%, 41%), respectively. After controlling for CMV serostatus, the relative incidence of DNAemia was similar between prophylaxis groups (subdistribution hazard ratio: 1.01, 95% CI 0.53, 1.90).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in CMV DNAemia within 9 months of liver transplant was observed between patients who received early and delayed prophylaxis. Future studies are warranted to conclude that delaying prophylaxis can be considered a safe alternative to initiating prophylaxis immediately after transplant.
© 2022 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  antiviral drug; cytomegalovirus; ganciclovir; liver transplant; opportunistic infections

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35748517      PMCID: PMC9469200          DOI: 10.1002/phar.2714

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacotherapy        ISSN: 0277-0008            Impact factor:   6.251


  12 in total

1.  Efficacy and safety of valganciclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

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

Review 2.  Prevention of posttransplant cytomegalovirus disease and related outcomes with valganciclovir: a systematic review.

Authors:  H-Y Sun; M M Wagener; N Singh
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation.

Authors:  R R Razonable; A Humar
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 8.086

4.  Impact of Prophylaxis vs Pre-emptive Approach for Cytomegalovirus Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  O Kır; A Zeytinoğlu; B Arda; M Yılmaz; G Aşçı; H Töz
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.066

Review 5.  The Third International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid-organ Transplantation.

Authors:  Camille N Kotton; Deepali Kumar; Angela M Caliendo; Shirish Huprikar; Sunwen Chou; Lara Danziger-Isakov; Atul Humar
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  Effect of delaying prophylaxis against CMV in D+/R- solid organ transplant recipients in the development of CMV-specific cellular immunity and occurrence of late CMV disease.

Authors:  R San-Juan; D Navarro; A García-Reyne; M Montejo; P Muñoz; J Carratala; O Len; J Fortun; B Muñoz-Cobo; E Gimenez; A Eworo; N Sabe; Y Meije; P Martin-Davila; A Andres; J Delgado; C Jimenez; P Amat; M Fernández-Ruiz; F López-Medrano; C Lumbreras; J M Aguado
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 6.072

7.  Late-onset CMV disease following CMV prophylaxis.

Authors:  C Donnelly; F Kennedy; C Keane; K Schaffer; P A McCormick
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 1.568

8.  A new strategy of delayed long-term prophylaxis could prevent cytomegalovirus disease in (D+/R-) solid organ transplant recipients.

Authors:  R San Juan; M Yebra; C Lumbreras; F López-Medrano; M Lizasoain; J C Meneu; J Delgado; A Andrés; J M Aguado
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2009-08-17       Impact factor: 2.863

Review 9.  Delayed onset CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

Authors:  Shahid Husain; Carolynn E Pietrangeli; Adriana Zeevi
Journal:  Transpl Immunol       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 1.708

Review 10.  A Practical Review of Cytomegalovirus in Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Authors:  Ali Y Fakhreddine; Catherine T Frenette; Gauree G Konijeti
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 2.260

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.