Preemptive versus sequential prophylactic-preemptive treatment regimens for cytomegalovirus in renal transplantation: Comparison of treatment failure and antiviral resistance

Transplantation

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 320-326

  Van Der Beek, Martha T ^a   Berger, Stefan P ^a   Vossen, Ann C T M ^a   Van Der Blij De Brouwer, Caroline S ^a   Press, Rogier R ^a   De Fijter, Johan W ^a   Claas, Eric C J ^a   Kroes, Aloys C M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cytomegalovirus; Kidney transplantation; Preemptive treatment; Prophylaxis; Viral resistance

Indexed keywords

VALGANCICLOVIR; VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE; ANTIVIRAL THERAPY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; FEMALE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VIRUS ISOLATION; VIRUS LOAD;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTILYMPHOCYTE SERUM; ANTIVIRAL AGENTS; COHORT STUDIES; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTIONS; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; DRUG RESISTANCE, VIRAL; FEMALE; GANCICLOVIR; HUMANS; IMMUNOGLOBULIN G; INCIDENCE; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RECOMBINANT FUSION PROTEINS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 76649124891     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181bc0301     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Hibberd PL, Tolkoff-Rubin NE, Cosimi AB, et al. Symptomatic cyto-megalovirus diseaseinthe cytomegalovirus antibody seropositive renal transplant recipient treated with OKT3. Transplantation 1992; 53: 68.
2. Rondeau E, Bourgeon B, Peraldi MN, et al. Effect of prophylactic gan-ciclovir on cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1993; 8: 858.
3. Sun HY, Wagener MM, Singh N. Prevention of posttransplant cyto-megalovirus disease and related outcomes with valganciclovir: A systematic review. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2111.
4. Khoury JA, Storch GA, Bohl DL, et al. Prophylactic versus preemptive oral valganciclovir for the managementof cytomegalovirus infection in adult renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 2134.
5. Kliem V, Fricke L, Wollbrink T, et al. Improvement in long-term renal graft survival due to CMV prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 975.
6. Arthurs SK, Eid AJ, Pedersen RA, et al. Delayed-onset primary cytomegalovirus disease and the risk of allograft failure and mortality after kidney transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 840.
7. Lamoth F, Manuel O, Venetz JP, et al. What is the impact of late-onset cytomegalovirus disease after valganciclovir prophylaxis in kidney transplantation? Transplantation 2008; 86: 1323.
8. Paya C, Humar A, Dominguez E, et al. Efficacy and safety of valganciclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 611.
9. Scemla A, Kreis H, Legendre C. Less pessimistic long-term results for patients with cytomegalovirus disease. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47: 1360.
10. Asberg A, Humar A, Rollag H, et al. Oral valganciclovir is noninferior to intravenous ganciclovir for the treatment of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 2106.
11. Emery VC, Griffiths PD. Prediction of cytomegalovirus load and resistance patterns after antiviral chemotherapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97: 8039.
12. Ljungman P, Griffiths P, Paya C. Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1094.
13. Kalpoe JS, Kroes ACM, de Jong MD, et al. Validation of clinical application of cytomegalovirus plasma DNA load measurement and definition of treatment criteria by analysis of correlation to antigen detection. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 1498.
14. Chou S. Cytomegalovirus UL97 mutations in the era of ganciclovir and maribavir. Rev Med Virol 2008; 18: 233.
15. Schafer P, Tenschert W, Cremaschi L, et al. Area under the viraemia curve versus absolute viral load: Utility for predicting symptomatic cytomegalovirus infections in kidney transplant patients. J Med Virol 2001; 65: 85.
16. Humar A, Mazzulli T, Moussa G, et al. Clinical utility of cytomegalovirus (CMV) serology testing in high-risk CMV D+R-transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 1065.
17. Steininger C, Kundi M, Kletzmayr J, et al. Antibody maturation and viremia after primary cytomegalovirus infection, in immunocompetent patients and kidney-transplant patients. J Infect Dis 2004; 190: 1908.
18. Eid AJ, Arthurs SK, Deziel PJ, et al. Emergence of drug-resistant cytomegalovirus in the era of valganciclovir prophylaxis: Therapeutic implications and outcomes. Clin Transplant 2008; 22: 162.
19. Limaye AP, Corey L, Koelle DM, et al. Emergence of ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus disease among recipients of solid-organ transplants. Lancet 2000; 356:645.
20. Alain S, Hantz S, Scieux C, et al. Detection of ganciclovir resistance after valacyclovir-prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients with active cytomegalovirus infection. J Med Virol 2004; 73: 566.
21. Boivin G, Goyette N, Gilbert C, et al. Absence of cytomegalovirus- resistance mutations after valganciclovir prophylaxis, in a prospective multicenter study of solid-organ transplant recipients. J Infect Dis 2004; 189: 1615.
22. Chamberlain CE, Penzak SR, Alfaro RM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of low and maintenance dose valganciclovir in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 1297.
23. Wiltshire H, Hirankarn S, Farrell C, et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of ganciclovir after its oral administration and from its prodrug, valganciclovir, in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44: 495.
24. Emery VC, Sabin CA, Cope AV, et al. Application of viral-load kinetics to identify patients who develop cytomegalovirus disease after transplantation. Lancet 2000; 355: 2032.