12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      1597. Risk Factors for Failure of Primary (Val)ganciclovir Prophylaxis Against Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection and Disease in Solid Organ Transplant (SOT) Recipients

      abstract

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Following solid-organ transplantation (SOT), the optimal dose of primary (val)ganciclovir (v(gcv)) prophylaxis against CMV infection is debated, and breakthrough infection and treatment-limiting side effects are frequently seen. Rates and risk factors for CMV prophylaxis breakthrough and premature cessation of prophylaxis for other reasons were investigated in a large cohort of consecutive SOTs.

          Methods

          SOT recipients transplanted (tx) between 2012 and 2016 at Rigshospitalet, and who were initiated on primary prophylaxis ≤14 days post-tx were followed from this time until 90 (±7) days post-tx. A prophylaxis score for each patient/day was calculated during the follow-up time (FUT) (score of 100 corresponding to the manufacturers’ recommended dose for a given eGFR; Figure 1). Prophylaxis breakthrough was defined as PCR verified CMV DNA positivity in plasma or BAL (i.e., infection) and premature stop of prophylaxis as >7 days with a score of 0. Time to event and hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with Cox models after adjustment for relevant risk factors.

          Results

          Of 585 SOTs (311 kidney, 117 liver, 106 lung, 51 heart) included, 41 (7%, 95% CI 4.9–9.1%) experienced CMV prophylaxis breakthrough (9/41 [22%, 9.2–34.6%] developed viral resistance to (v)gcv) and 33/585 (5.6%, 3.7–7.5%) ceased prophylaxis for other reasons during the first 90 days after tx. After adjustment for tx type, CMV IgG D+/R− mismatch and increasing % of FUT with a prophylaxis score <90 were associated with increased risk of breakthrough (HR 4.76 [95% CI 2.38–9.54] P < 0.001 and HR 1.15 [1.04–1.27] P = 0.007/10% longer FUT w/ score < 90 respectively, Figure 2) whereas tx type was not. The main risk factor for stopping prophylaxis for reasons other than breakthrough was lung tx (22.9%, HR 13.4 (vs. kidney SOT) [5.4–33.4]), mainly due to liver or myelotoxicity.

          Conclusion

          SOTs receiving (v)gcv primary prophylaxis doses below the manufacturers’ recommended doses according to latest eGFR were at an increased risk of CMV prophylaxis breakthrough, particularly in case of CMV IgG D+/R− mismatch, while 23% of lung tx recipients stopped prophylaxis mainly due to toxicity. Our findings indicate the need to dose adjust (v)gcv according to latest eGFR and preferably use novel, less toxic agents.

          Disclosures

          All authors: No reported disclosures.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Open Forum Infect Dis
          Open Forum Infect Dis
          ofid
          Open Forum Infectious Diseases
          Oxford University Press (US )
          2328-8957
          November 2018
          26 November 2018
          26 November 2018
          : 5
          : Suppl 1 , ID Week 2018 Abstracts
          : S500
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Center of Excellence for Health, Immunity and Infections (CHIP), Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
          [2 ]Centre for Clinical Research, Epidemiology, Modelling and Evaluation (CREME), Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
          [3 ]Department of Nephrology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
          [4 ]Department of Cardiology, Section for Lung Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
          [5 ]Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
          [6 ]Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
          [7 ]Centre of Excellence for Health, Immunity and Infections (CHIP), Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
          Article
          ofy210.1425
          10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1425
          6253855
          10437d3c-1ee7-4385-b0a8-db1c0f010473
          © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

          This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

          History
          Page count
          Pages: 1
          Categories
          Abstracts
          Poster Abstracts

          Comments

          Comment on this article