0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Prospective Comparison of Valacyclovir and Oral Ganciclovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in High-Risk Renal Transplant Recipients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Aims: To compare the efficacy, costs and safety of oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir in the prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in renal transplant (RTx) recipients at high risk of CMV disease. Methods: A total of 83 patients were prospectively randomized to 3-month treatment with either oral ganciclovir (3 g/day) or oral valacyclovir (8 g/day). A 3rd group received no prophylaxis. Forty-nine patients were considered to be at high risk of CMV disease due to D+R– serologic status, OKT3/ATG treatment and/or acute rejection within 12 months after RTx. Twenty-three high-risk patients were treated with ganciclovir (GAN group), 17 patients with valacyclovir (VAL group), and 9 patients received no prophylaxis (C group). Results: No significant differences were found among the groups in their demographic characteristics, immunosuppressive protocols, D/R CMV serology, or CMV risk factors. The 12-month incidence of CMV disease was 89% in the C group compared with 9% in the GAN group and 6% in the VAL group (p < 0.001, GAN or VAL vs. C; p = 0.713, GAN vs. VAL). Treatment failure (death, graft loss, CMV disease or withdrawal from study) occurred in 17, 6, and 89% in the GAN, VAL, and C groups, respectively (p < 0.001, GAN or VAL vs. C; p = 0.285, GAN vs. VAL). The average CMV-associated costs per patient were EUR 3,161, 3,757, and 7,247 in the GAN, VAL, and C groups, respectively (p = 0.027). Conclusion: Valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir are equally effective in the prophylaxis of CMV disease in high-risk RTx patients. Both regimens are cost-effective and help reduce CMV-associated costs by nearly 50% compared with patients without prophylaxis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology.

          Standardization of renal allograft biopsy interpretation is necessary to guide therapy and to establish an objective end point for clinical trials. This manuscript describes a classification, Banff 97, developed by investigators using the Banff Schema and the Collaborative Clinical Trials in Transplantation (CCTT) modification for diagnosis of renal allograft pathology. Banff 97 grew from an international consensus discussion begun at Banff and continued via the Internet. This schema developed from (a) analysis of data using the Banff classification, (b) publication of and experience with the CCTT modification, (c) international conferences, and (d) data from recent studies on impact of vasculitis on transplant outcome. Semiquantitative lesion scoring continues to focus on tubulitis and arteritis but includes a minimum threshold for interstitial inflammation. Banff 97 defines "types" of acute/active rejection. Type I is tubulointerstitial rejection without arteritis. Type II is vascular rejection with intimal arteritis, and type III is severe rejection with transmural arterial changes. Biopsies with only mild inflammation are graded as "borderline/suspicious for rejection." Chronic/sclerosing allograft changes are graded based on severity of tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis. Antibody-mediated rejection, hyperacute or accelerated acute in presentation, is also categorized, as are other significant allograft findings. The Banff 97 working classification refines earlier schemas and represents input from two classifications most widely used in clinical rejection trials and in clinical practice worldwide. Major changes include the following: rejection with vasculitis is separated from tubulointerstitial rejection; severe rejection requires transmural changes in arteries; "borderline" rejection can only be interpreted in a clinical context; antibody-mediated rejection is further defined, and lesion scoring focuses on most severely involved structures. Criteria for specimen adequacy have also been modified. Banff 97 represents a significant refinement of allograft assessment, developed via international consensus discussions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            We compared the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir with those of oral ganciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients of organs from seropositive donors (D+/R-). In this randomised, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy study, 364 CMV D+/R- patients received valganciclovir 900 mg once daily or oral ganciclovir 1000 mg three times a day (tid) within 10 days of transplant and continued through 100 days. CMV disease, plasma viremia, acute graft rejection, graft loss and safety were analyzed up to 6 and 12 months post-transplant. Endpoint committee-defined CMV disease developed in 12.1% and 15.2% of valganciclovir and ganciclovir patients, respectively, by 6 months, though with a difference in the relative efficacy of valganciclovir and ganciclovir between organs (i.e. an organ type-treatment interaction). By 12 months, respective incidences were 17.2% and 18.4%, and the incidence of investigator-treated CMV disease events was comparable in the valganciclovir (30.5%) and ganciclovir (28.0%) arms. CMV viremia during prophylaxis was significantly lower with valganciclovir (2.9% vs. 10.4%; p=0.001), but was comparable by 12 months (48.5% valganciclovir vs 48.8% ganciclovir). Time-to-onset of CMV disease and to viremia were delayed with valganciclovir; rates of acute allograft rejection were generally lower with valganciclovir. Except for a higher incidence of neutropenia with valganciclovir (8.2%, vs 3.2% ganciclovir) the safety profile was similar for both drugs. Overall, once-daily oral valganciclovir was as clinically effective and well-tolerated as oral ganciclovir tid for CMV prevention in high-risk SOT recipients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Valacyclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease after renal transplantation. International Valacyclovir Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis Transplantation Study Group.

              Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a major complication of organ transplantation. We hypothesized that prophylactic treatment with valacyclovir would reduce the risk of CMV disease. A total of 208 CMV-negative recipients of a kidney from a seropositive donor and 408 CMV-positive recipients were randomly assigned to receive either 2 g of valacyclovir or placebo orally four times daily for 90 days after transplantation, with the dose adjusted according to renal function. The primary end point was laboratory-confirmed CMV disease in the first six months after transplantation. Treatment with valacyclovir reduced the incidence or delayed the onset of CMV disease in both the seronegative patients (P<0.001) and the seropositive patients (P=0.03). Among the seronegative patients, the incidence of CMV disease 90 days after transplantation was 45 percent among placebo recipients and 3 percent among valacyclovir recipients. Among the seropositive patients, the respective values were 6 percent and 0 percent. At six months, the incidence of CMV disease was 45 percent among seronegative recipients of placebo and 16 percent among seronegative recipients of valacyclovir; it was 6 percent among seropositive placebo recipients and 1 percent among seropositive valacyclovir recipients. At six months, the rate of biopsy-confirmed acute graft rejection in the seronegative group was 52 percent among placebo recipients and 26 percent among valacyclovir recipients (P=0.001). Treatment with valacyclovir also decreased the rates of CMV viremia and viruria, herpes simplex virus disease, and the use of inpatient medical resources. Hallucinations and confusion were more common with valacyclovir treatment, but these events were not severe or treatment-limiting. The rates of other adverse events were similar among the groups. Prophylactic treatment with valacyclovir is a safe and effective way to prevent CMV disease after renal transplantation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                KBR
                Kidney Blood Press Res
                10.1159/issn.1420-4096
                Kidney and Blood Pressure Research
                S. Karger AG
                1420-4096
                1423-0143
                2005
                December 2005
                27 December 2005
                : 28
                : 4
                : 218-225
                Affiliations
                Departments of aInternal Medicine I, bSurgery, cHematooncology, and dVirology, Charles University School of Medicine and University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic
                Article
                87129 Kidney Blood Press Res 2005;28:218–225
                10.1159/000087129
                16043964
                © 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, References: 31, Pages: 8
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/87129
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article