Is cytomegalovirus prophylaxis dispensable in patients receiving an mtor inhibitor-based immunosuppression? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transplantation

Volumn 94, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1208-1217

  Andrassy, Joachim ^a   Hoffmann, Verena S ^b   Rentsch, Markus ^a   Stangl, Manfred ^a   Habicht, Antje ^a   Meiser, Bruno ^a   Fischereder, Michael ^a   Jauch, Karl Walter ^a   Guba, Markus ^a  

^a LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Calcineurininhibitors; Cytomegalovirus; Meta analysis; mTOR Inhibitors; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR; CYCLOSPORIN A; EVEROLIMUS; GANCICLOVIR; MAMMALIAN TARGET OF RAPAMYCIN INHIBITOR; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS; VALGANCICLOVIR;

BONE MARROW SUPPRESSION; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; HEART TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; INCIDENCE; INFECTION PREVENTION; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; META ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NEPHROTOXICITY; OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTION; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ANTIVIRAL AGENTS; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTIONS; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; INCIDENCE; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; TOR SERINE-THREONINE KINASES;

EID: 84872085198     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182708e56     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Fishman JA. Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2601.
2. Hodson EM, Jones CA, Webster AC, et al. Antiviral medications to prevent cytomegalovirus disease and early death in recipients of solidorgan transplants: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2005; 365: 2105.
3. Limaye AP, Bakthavatsalam R, Kim HW, et al. Late-onset cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients despite antiviral prophylaxis. Transplantation 2004; 78: 1390.
4. Limaye AP, Bakthavatsalam R, Kim HW, et al. Impact of cytomegalovirus in organ transplant recipients in the era of antiviral prophylaxis. Transplantation 2006; 81: 1645.
5. Sagedal S, Hartmann A, Nordal KP, et al. Impact of early cytomegalovirus infection and disease on long-term recipient and kidney graft survival. Kidney Int 2004; 66: 329.
6. Ho M. Epidemiology of cytomegalovirus infections. Rev Infect Dis 1990; 12 Suppl 7: S701.
7. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009; 9 Suppl 3: S1.
8. Humar A, Lebranchu Y, Vincenti F, et al. The efficacy and safety of 200 days valganciclovir cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 1228.
9. Humar A, Limaye AP, Blumberg EA, et al. Extended valganciclovir prophylaxis in D+/R-kidney transplant recipients is associated with long-term reduction in cytomegalovirus disease: two-year results of the IMPACT study. Transplantation 2010; 90: 1427.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Gane E, Saliba F, Valdecasas GJ, et al. Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of oral ganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver-transplant recipients. The Oral Ganciclovir International Transplantation Study Group [corrected]. Lancet 1997; 350: 1729.
13. Sun HY, Wagener MM, Singh N. Prevention of posttransplant cytomegalovirus disease and related outcomes with valganciclovir: a systematic review. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2111.
14. Buchler M, Caillard S, Barbier S, et al. Sirolimus versus cyclosporine in kidney recipients receiving thymoglobulin, mycophenolate mofetil and a 6-month course of steroids. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 2522.
15. Budde K, Becker T, Arns W, et al. Everolimus-based, calcineurininhibitor- free regimen in recipients of de-novo kidney transplants: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 377: 837.
16. Guba M, Pratschke J, Hugo C, et al. Renal function, efficacy, and safety of sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil after short-term calcineurin inhibitor-based quadruple therapy in de novo renal transplant patients: one-year analysis of a randomized multicenter trial. Transplantation 2010; 90: 175.
17. Webster AC, Lee VW, Chapman JR, et al. Target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression of kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Transplantation 2006; 81: 1234.
18. Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2562.
19. Nashan B, Gaston R, Emery V, et al. Review of cytomegalovirus infection findings with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive therapy in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2012; 93: 1075.
20. Flechner SM, Goldfarb D, Solez K, et al. Kidney transplantation with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil-based immunosuppression: 5-year results of a randomized prospective trial compared to calcineurin inhibitor drugs. Transplantation 2007; 83: 883.
21. Larson TS, Dean PG, Stegall MD, et al. Complete avoidance of calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: a randomized trial comparing sirolimus and tacrolimus. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 514.
22. Glotz D, Charpentier B, Abramovicz D, et al. Thymoglobulin induction and sirolimus versus tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation 2010; 89: 1511.
23. Durrbach A, Rostaing L, Tricot L, et al. Prospective comparison of the use of sirolimus and cyclosporine in recipients of a kidney from an expanded criteria donor. Transplantation 2008; 85: 486.
24. Weir MR, Mulgaonkar S, Chan L, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil-based immunosuppression with sirolimus in renal transplantation: a randomized, controlled spare-the-nephron trial. Kidney Int 2011; 79: 897.
25. Servais A, Meas-Yedid V, Toupance O, et al. Interstitial fibrosis quantification in renal transplant recipients randomized to continue cyclosporine or convert to sirolimus. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 2552.
26. Lebranchu Y, Thierry A, Toupance O, et al. Efficacy on renal function of early conversion from cyclosporine to sirolimus 3 months after renal transplantation: concept study. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 1115.
27. Lehmkuhl HB, Arizon J, Vigano M, et al. Everolimus with reduced cyclosporine versus MMF with standard cyclosporine in de novo heart transplant recipients. Transplantation 2009; 88: 115.
28. Vigano M, Dengler T, Mattei MF, et al. Lower incidence of cytomegalovirus infection with everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo cardiac transplant recipients: a randomized, multicenter study. Transpl Infect Dis 2010; 12: 23.
29. Tedesco Silva H Jr, Cibrik D, Johnston T, et al. Everolimus plus reduced-exposure CsA versus mycophenolic acid plus standardexposure CsA in renal-transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 1401.
30. Eisen HJ, Tuzcu EM, Dorent R, et al. Everolimus for the prevention of allograft rejection and vasculopathy in cardiac-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 847.
31. Hill JA, Hummel M, Starling RC, et al. A lower incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in de novo heart transplant recipients randomized to everolimus. Transplantation 2007; 84: 1436.
32. Vigano M, Tuzcu M, Benza R, et al. Prevention of acute rejection and allograft vasculopathy by everolimus in cardiac transplants recipients: a 24-month analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant 2007; 26: 584.
33. Keogh A, Richardson M, Ruygrok P, et al. Sirolimus in de novo heart transplant recipients reduces acute rejection and prevents coronary artery disease at 2 years: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation 2004; 110: 2694.
34. Lorber MI, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KM, et al. Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study. Transplantation 2005; 80: 244.
35. Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 2521.
36. Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, et al. Everolimus (Certican) 12-month safety and efficacy versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2004; 78: 1532.
37. Kahan BD. Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft rejection: a randomised multicentre study. The Rapamune US Study Group. Lancet 2000; 356: 194.
38. Masetti M, Montalti R, Rompianesi G, et al. Early withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and everolimus monotherapy in de novo liver transplant recipients preserves renal function. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 2252.
39. Sampaio EL, Pinheiro-Machado PG, Garcia R, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil vs. sirolimus in kidney transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen. Clin Transplant 2008; 22: 141.
40. Van Gurp E, Bustamante J, Franco A, et al. Comparable renal function at 6 months with tacrolimus combined with fixed-dose sirolimus or MMF: results of a randomized multicenter trial in renal transplantation. J Transplant 2010; 2010.
41. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus/sirolimus versus tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (NEORAL)/sirolimus in renal transplantation. II. Survival, function, and protocol compliance at 1 year. Transplantation 2004; 77: 252.
42. Kahan BD. Two-year results of multicenter phase III trials on the effect of the addition of sirolimus to cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2003; 35(3 Suppl): 37S.
43. MacDonald AS. A worldwide, phase III, randomized, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts. Transplantation 2001; 71: 271.
44. Vitko S, Wlodarczyk Z, Kyllonen L, et al. Tacrolimus combined with two different dosages of sirolimus in kidney transplantation: results of a multicenter study. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 531.
45. Kandaswamy R, Melancon JK, Dunn T, et al. A prospective randomized trial of steroid-free maintenance regimens in kidney transplant recipientsYan interim analysis. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 1529.
46. Kobashigawa JA, Miller LW, Russell SD, et al. Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus vs. cyclosporine with MMF in cardiac transplant patients: 1-year report. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1377.
47. Levy G, Schmidli H, Punch J, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of everolimus in de novo liver transplant recipients: 12-and 36-month results. Liver Transpl 2006; 12: 1640.
48. Buchkovich NJ, Yu Y, Zampieri CA, et al. The TORrid affairs of viruses: effects of mammalian DNA viruses on the PI3K-Akt-mTOR signalling pathway. Nat Rev Microbiol 2008; 6: 266.
49. Pengel LH, Liu LQ, Morris PJ. Do wound complications or lymphoceles occur more often in solid organ transplant recipients on mTOR inhibitors? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Transpl Int 2011; 24: 1216.
50. Richter JD, Sonenberg N. Regulation of cap-dependent translation by eIF4E inhibitory proteins. Nature 2005; 433: 477.
51. Moorman NJ, Shenk T. Rapamycin-resistant mTORC1 kinase activity is required for herpesvirus replication. J Virol 2010; 84: 5260.
52. Araki K, Turner AP, Shaffer VO, et al. mTOR regulates memory CD8 T-cell differentiation. Nature 2009; 460: 108.
53. Frascaroli G, Varani S, Blankenhorn N, et al. Human cytomegalovirus paralyzes macrophage motility through down-regulation of chemokine receptors, reorganization of the cytoskeleton, and release of macrophage migration inhibitory factor. J Immunol 2009; 182: 477.
54. Schneider K, Meyer-Koenig U, Hufert FT. Human cytomegalovirus impairs the function of plasmacytoid dendritic cells in lymphoid organs. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3482.
55. Poglitsch M, Weichhart T, Hecking M, et al. CMV late phase-induced mTOR activation is essential for efficient virus replication in polarized human macrophages. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 1458.
56. Saemann MD, Haidinger M, Hecking M, et al. The multifunctional role of mTOR in innate immunity: implications for transplant immunity. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 2655.
57. Weichhart T, Haidinger M, Katholnig K, et al. Inhibition of mTOR blocks the anti-inflammatory effects of glucocorticoids in myeloid immune cells. Blood 2011; 117: 4273.
58. Shlobin OA, West EE, Lechtzin N, et al. Persistent cytomegalovirusspecific memory responses in the lung allograft and blood following primary infection in lung transplant recipients. J Immunol 2006; 176: 2625.
59. Abate D, Saldan A, Fiscon M, et al. Evaluation of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific T cell immune reconstitution revealed that baseline antiviral immunity, prophylaxis, or preemptive therapy but not antithymocyte globulin treatment contribute to CMV-specific T cell reconstitution in kidney transplant recipients. J Infect Dis 2010; 202: 585.
60. Gerna G, Lilleri D, Fornara C, et al. Monitoring of human cytomegalovirus-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cell immunity in patients receiving solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 2356.
61. Nebbia G, Mattes FM, Smith C, et al. Polyfunctional cytomegalovirusspecific CD4+ and pp65 CD8+ T cells protect against high-level replication after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2590.
62. Egli A, Binet I, Binggeli S, et al. Cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell responses and viral replication in kidney transplant recipients. J Transl Med 2008; 6: 29.
63. Reischig T, Jindra P, Hes O, et al. Valacyclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive valganciclovir therapy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 69.
64. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629.
65. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a metaanalysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539.
66. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat 2005; 30: 261.
67. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1.
68. Pengel LH, Barcena L, Morris PJ. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int 2009; 22: 377.
69. Pengel LH, Liu LQ, Morris PJ. Do wound complications or lymphoceles occur more often in solid organ transplant recipients on mTOR inhibitors? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Transpl Int 2011; 24: 1216.