Dataset Information

Antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To conduct a meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the outcomes of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in liver transplant (LT) recipients.

Methods

We searched databases for qualified studies up until March 2022. Finally, a meta-analysis was carried out using a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

Results

With a total of 1834 LT patients, the pooled incidence of CMV infection and CMV disease in the overall LT recipients using antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy were 24.7% vs. 40.4% and 6.4% vs. 9.4%, respectively. Our meta-analysis exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of CMV infection due to antiviral prophylaxis when compared to preemptive therapy in the high-risk group (OR: 6.67, 95% CI: 1.73, 25.66; p = 0.006). In contrast, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of late-onset of CMV disease in preemptive therapy compared to antiviral prophylaxis in the high-risk group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.74; p = 0.009). However, the incidence of CMV disease, allograft rejection, graft loss, drug related adverse effects, opportunistic infections and mortality did not differ significantly between both the interventions (all p> 0.05).

Conclusions

We found the use of antiviral prophylaxis, compared with preemptive therapy, is superior in controlling CMV infection and prolonging the time to CMV disease in LT recipients without an increased risk of opportunistic infections, allograft rejection, graft loss, drug related adverse effects, development of drug resistance, and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Yadav DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9685424 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yadav Dipesh Kumar DK Adhikari Vishnu Prasad VP Yadav Rajesh Kumar RK Singh Alina A Huang Xing X Zhang Qi Q Pandit Prabesh P Ling Qi Q Liang Tingbo T

Frontiers in immunology 20221110

<h4>Background</h4>To conduct a meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the outcomes of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in liver transplant (LT) recipients.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched databases for qualified studies up until March 2022. Finally, a meta-analysis was carried out using a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity.<h4>Results</h4>With a total of 1834 LT patients, the pooled incidence of CMV infect ...[more]

PMID: 36439159

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Despite the use of a cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention strategy of antiviral prophylaxis for high-risk CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors, high rates of delayed-onset postprophylaxis CMV disease occur. An alternate approach, preemptive therapy (initiation of antiviral therapy for early asymptomatic CMV viremia detected by surveillance testing), has not previously been directly compared with antiviral prophylaxis in these patients. Objective:To compare preemptive therapy with antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors for the prevention of CMV disease. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized clinical trial of preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis in 205 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors aged older than 18 years. The trial was conducted at 6 academic transplant centers in the United States between October 2012 and June 2017, with last follow-up in June 2018. Interventions:Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either preemptive therapy (valganciclovir, 900 mg, twice daily until 2 consecutive negative tests a week apart) for viremia detected by weekly plasma CMV polymerase chain reaction for 100 days (n = 100) or valganciclovir, 900 mg, daily for 100 days as antiviral prophylaxis (n = 105). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was incidence of CMV disease by 12 months, defined as CMV syndrome (CMV viremia and clinical or laboratory findings) or end-organ disease. Secondary outcomes included acute allograft rejection, opportunistic infections, graft and patient survival, and neutropenia. Results:Among 205 patients who were randomized (mean age, 55 years; 62 women [30%]), all 205 (100%) completed the trial. The incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower with preemptive therapy than antiviral prophylaxis (9% [9/100] vs 19% [20/105]; difference, 10% [95% CI, 0.5% to 19.6%]; P = .04]). The incidence of allograft rejection (28% vs 25%; difference, 3% [95% CI, -9% to 15%]), opportunistic infections (25% vs 27%; difference, 2% [95% CI, -14% to 10%]), graft loss (2% vs 2%; difference, <1% [95% CI, -4% to 4%]), and neutropenia (13% vs 10%; difference, 3% [95% CI, -5% to 12%]) did not differ significantly for the preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis group, respectively. All-cause mortality at last follow-up was 15% in the preemptive therapy vs 19% in the antiviral prophylaxis group (difference, 4% [95% CI, -14% to 6%]; P = .46). Conclusions and Relevance:Among CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors, the use of preemptive therapy, compared with antiviral prophylaxis, resulted in a lower incidence of CMV disease over 12 months. Further research is needed to replicate these findings and assess long-term outcomes. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552369.

Project description:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia occurs in 40% to 80% of CMV-seropositive (R+) recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The preemptive therapy (PET) strategy has reduced the risk of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) and associated mortality but may lead to substantial healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Real-world data on the economic impact of PET is relevant for the evaluation of alternative strategies for CMV management. We examined the impact of clinically significant CMV treated with PET on inpatient length of stay (LOS), number of readmissions, and associated costs from day 0 through day 180 post-HCT. This was a retrospective study of R+ adults who underwent peripheral blood or marrow allogeneic HCT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between March 2013 and December 2017. Patients were routinely screened for CMV by qPCR and received PET according to institutional standards of care. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and hospital databases. Itemized cost data per patient were obtained from the Vizient database, adjusted to 2017 dollars using inflation indices. Study outcomes included HCRU evaluated by inpatient LOS and inpatient cost in patients who received PET for clinically significant CMV (PET group) compared with those who did not receive PET (no PET group) and the frequency and cost of CMV-related readmissions compared with non CMV-related readmissions. We used generalized linear models to examine the incremental HCRU and costs associated with PET controlling for other potential factors. Of 357 patients, PET was initiated in 208 (58.3%), at a median of 35 days after HCT. By day 180, 23 patients (6.4%) had developed CMV EOD and 3 (.8%) had died of CMV. Compared with the no PET group, the PET group had a longer LOS for HCT admission (P = .0276), longer total LOS by day 180 (P = .0001), a higher number of readmissions (P = .0001), a higher mean inpatient cost for HCT admission ($189,389 versus $151,646; P = .0133), and a higher total inpatient cost ($297,563 versus $205,815; P < .0001). Among PET recipients, CMV-related readmissions were associated with higher mean cost per episode compared with non CMV-related readmissions ($165,455 versus $89,419; P = .005). CMV-related readmissions comprised 40.6% of total all-cause readmissions and incurred 55.9% of total all-cause readmission costs in PET recipients. Our data show that patients treated with currently available PET had greater inpatient HCRU and cost, by day 180 compared with patients who did not receive PET. The cost of CMV-related readmissions accounted for 56% of total readmission cost among PET recipients. Future studies are needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for CMV management.

Dataset Information

Antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus after liver transplantation?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets