Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 Jun;26(3):e14282.
doi: 10.1111/tid.14282. Epub 2024 Jun 2.

Comparison of prophylaxis and preemptive strategy as cytomegalovirus prevention in liver transplant recipients

Christophe Camus  1   2 , Mélanie Poinot  1 , Charlotte Pronier  3 , Michel Rayar  4 , Anne Le Neillon  5 , Marianne Latournerie  6 , Gisèle Lagathu  3 , Matthieu Revest  1   2   7
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of prophylaxis and preemptive strategy as cytomegalovirus prevention in liver transplant recipients

Christophe Camus et al. Transpl Infect Dis. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: Prophylaxis (P) or pre-emptive strategy (PS) in high-risk liver transplant recipients (LTRs) are either recommended. We compared the results of each strategy.

Methods: Two groups of LTR transplanted during two consecutive periods were compared. Only cytomegalovirus (CMV)-mismatched LTR (Donor +/ Recipient -) were included. The primary endpoints were: the onset of polymerase chain reaction-based DNAemia and the proportion of patients with CMV disease. A number of episodes of CMV infection, antiviral therapy, ganciclovir resistance, infectious or immunological complications, cost of both strategies, and survival (1, 5, and 10 years) were also compared.

Results: Forty-eight and 60 patients were respectively included in the P and PS groups. Eighteen (38%) in the P group and 56 (93%) in the PS group had CMV DNAemia (p <.0001) with a similar CMV disease rate (16.7% and 15%). Duration of curative therapy was longer in the PS group: 91 days versus 16 (p <.0001). Acute rejection was less frequent (p = .04) and more patients experienced a ganciclovir-resistant CMV infection in the PS group (10% vs. 0, p = .03). The drug-associated cost of PS was higher (10 004 vs. 4804€) and the median number of rehospitalization days tended to be higher (6 vs. 4, p = .06). Survival at any time was similar.

Conclusion: We reported more CMV DNAemias and ganciclovir-resistant CMV events with PS. The cost of the PS strategy was higher.

Keywords: cytomegalovirus infection; liver transplantation; outcomes; preemptive strategy; prophylactic strategy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. Fishman JA. Infection in organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(Suppl 4):93‐106. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12103
    1. Bruminhent J, Razonable RR. Management of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in liver transplant recipients. World J Hepatol. 2014;6(6):370. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v6.i6.370
    1. Razonable RR, Humar A, AST Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(Suppl 4):93‐106. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12103
    1. Kotton CN, Kumar D, Caliendo AM, et al. Updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid‐organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2013;96(4):333‐360. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31829df29d
    1. Atabani SF, Smith C, Atkinson C, et al. Cytomegalovirus replication kinetics in solid organ transplant recipients managed by preemptive therapy: CMV and preemptive antiviral therapy. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(9):2457‐2464. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐6143.2012.04087.x

Publication types

MeSH terms