A randomized prospective controlled trial of oral acyclovir versus oral ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant recipients

被引:100
|
作者
Flechner, SM
Avery, RK
Fisher, R
Mastroianni, BA
Papajcik, DA
O'Malley, KJ
Goormastic, M
Goldfarb, DA
Modlin, CS
Novick, AC
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin Fdn, Transplant Ctr A110, Sect Renal Transplantat, Dept Urol, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
[2] Cleveland Clin Fdn, Div Med, Infect Dis Sect, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00007890-199812270-00019
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. Posttransplantation cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a significant cause of morbidity in kidney transplant recipients. We performed a randomized prospective controlled trial of oral acyclovir versus oral ganciclovir for CMV prophylaxis in a group of renal allograft recipients considered at high risk for CMV disease due to the use of OKT3 induction therapy. Methods. A total of 101 recipients of cadaveric (83) and zero haplotype-matched live donor (18) kidney transplants were entered into the trial. A total of 22 D-R- patients received no prophylaxis. Twenty-seven D+R-, 29 D+R+, and 23 D-R+ patients were randomized to receive 3 months of either oral acyclovir (800 mg q.i.d.) or oral ganciclovir (1000 mg t.i.d.). Doses were adjusted according to the level of renal function, The D+R- patients were also given CMV immune globulin biweekly for 16 weeks. Surveillance blood cultures were obtained at transplantation, at months 1, 2, 3, and 6, and when clinically indicated. The primary study end points were time to CMV infection and disease the first 6 months after transplantation. Results. The mean follow up was 14.4 months. Both agents were well tolerated, and no drug interruptions for toxicity occurred, CMV was isolated in 14 of 39 (35.9%) acyclovir-treated and 1 of 40 (2.5%) ganciclovir-treated recipients by 6 months (P=0.0001). Symptomatic CMV disease occurred in 9 of 14 (64%) of the acyclovir patients,two with tissue-invasive disease. Infection rates for acyclovir vs. ganciclovir, respectively, stratified by CMV serology were: D+R-, 54 vs. 0%, P=0.0008; D+R+, 43 vs. 6.6%, P=0.01; D-R+, 8.3 vs. 0%, P=NS. No patient developed CMV infection while taking oral ganciclovir, however three delayed infections occurred 2-7 months after finishing therapy. Each patient had been previously treated for acute rejection. Conclusions. Oral acyclovir provides effective CMV prophylaxis only for recipients of seronegative donor kidneys. Oral ganciclovir is a superior agent providing effective CMV prophylaxis for recipients of seropositive donor kidneys. Recipients who are treated for acute rejection are at risk for delayed CMV infection during the first posttransplantation year.
引用
收藏
页码:1682 / 1688
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Oral ganciclovir prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in pediatric renal transplant recipients.
    Feneberg, R
    Weber, LT
    Fickenscher, H
    Toenshoff, B
    PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, 2005, 9 : 118 - 118
  • [32] RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF GANCICLOVIR FOLLOWED BY HIGH-DOSE ORAL ACYCLOVIR VS GANCICLOVIR ALONE IN THE PREVENTION OF CYTOMEGALOVIRUS DISEASE IN PEDIATRIC LIVER-TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS - PRELIMINARY-ANALYSIS
    GREEN, M
    REYES, J
    NOUR, B
    BEATTY, D
    KAUFMAN, M
    WILSON, J
    TODO, S
    TZAKIS, A
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1994, 26 (01) : 173 - 174
  • [33] GANCICLOVIR/ACYCLOVIR PROPHYLAXIS REDUCES THE INCIDENCE OF CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTIONS IN PANCREAS TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
    HARLAND, RC
    VERNON, WB
    BUNZENDAHL, H
    THOMPSON, JK
    LAWRENCE, C
    BOLLINGER, RR
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1994, 26 (02) : 432 - 433
  • [34] Oral ganciclovir usage for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in organ transplant recipients - Is emergence of resistance imminent?
    Singh, N
    Yu, VL
    DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 1998, 43 (06) : 1190 - 1192
  • [35] Comparison of combined prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin plus ganciclovir versus cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin alone in high-risk heart transplant recipients
    Bonaros, NE
    Kocher, A
    Dunkler, D
    Grimm, M
    Zuckermann, A
    Ankersmit, J
    Ehrlich, M
    Wolner, E
    Laufer, G
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 77 (06) : 890 - 897
  • [36] A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING - SEQUENTIAL, GANCICLOVIR HIGH-DOSE ACYCLOVIR TO HIGH-DOSE ACYCLOVIR FOR PREVENTION OF CYTOMEGALOVIRUS DISEASE IN ADULT LIVER-TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
    MARTIN, M
    MANEZ, R
    LINDEN, P
    ESTORES, D
    TORRECISNEROS, J
    KUSNE, S
    ONDICK, L
    PTACHCINSKI, R
    IRISH, W
    KISOR, D
    FELSER, I
    RINALDO, C
    STIEBER, A
    FUNG, J
    HO, MT
    SIMMONS, R
    STARZL, T
    TRANSPLANTATION, 1994, 58 (07) : 779 - 785
  • [37] Valacyclovir or valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis: A randomized controlled trial in adult and pediatric kidney transplant recipients
    Verghese, Priya S.
    Evans, Michael D.
    Hanson, Amy
    Hathi, Justina
    Chinnakotla, Srinath
    Matas, Arthur
    Balfour Jr, Henry H.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2024, 172
  • [38] RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF GANCICLOVIR AND HIGH-DOSE ACYCLOVIR FOR LONG-TERM CYTOMEGALOVIRUS PROPHYLAXIS IN LIVER-TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
    WINSTON, DJ
    WIRIN, D
    SHAKED, A
    BUSUTTIL, RW
    LANCET, 1995, 346 (8967): : 69 - 74
  • [39] Ganciclovir prophylaxis in CMV high-risk renal transplant recipients.
    Kletzmayr, J
    Safar, T
    Kovarik, J
    Klauser, R
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 1997, 8 : A3210 - A3210
  • [40] Editorial: Oral Ganciclovir Usage for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in Organ Transplant Recipients: Is Emergence of Resistance Imminent?
    Nina Singh
    Victor L. Yu
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 1998, 43 : 1190 - 1192