1600. An Optimal Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Treatment in Lung Transplant Recipients: Oral Ribavirin, Inhaled Ribavirin, or Conservative Approach

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common community acquired infection in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). The mortality in RSV-infected LTRs has been reported as 10–20% despite antiviral therapy; however, there is no consensus regarding treatment given limited data. METHODS: A ret...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Permpalung, Nitipong, Thaniyavarn, Tany, Saullo, Jennifer, Arif, Sana, Miller, Rachel, Reynolds, John, Alexander, Barbara D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Abstracts
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253796/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1428
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common community acquired infection in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). The mortality in RSV-infected LTRs has been reported as 10–20% despite antiviral therapy; however, there is no consensus regarding treatment given limited data. METHODS: A retrospective study of all LTRs at Duke University during January 2013 and May 2017 with a positive RSV PCR respiratory specimen was performed. Baseline characteristics, sites of infection, antiviral therapy, side effects, outcomes including all-cause 1-year mortality post RSV infection, and 90-day readmission rates were analyzed. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust the effect of ribavirin (RBV) on mortality. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen RSV-infected LTRs were identified: 70 received oral RBV, 32 inhaled RBV and 12 supportive care only. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 3 groups except site of infection and oxygen requirement at diagnosis (see table). Of 32 patients treated with inhaled RBV, 19 had a creatinine clearance <40 mL/minute and 8 were unable to take oral drugs. Unadjusted all-cause 1-year mortality was highest in the supportive care group [33.3% vs. 7.1% (oral RBV) vs. 25% (inhaled RBV), P = 0.01]. There were no significant differences in readmission rates among the 3 groups. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death and oral RBV use was 0.27 ([0.07,1.1], P = 0.07). The adjusted HR for death and inhaled RBV use was 0.90 ([0.22, 3.68], P = 0.88). RBV was stopped prematurely in only 1 patient in the oral group due to nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Oral and inhaled RBV appear to be well tolerated in LTRs. Our data support the use of oral RBV as a safe alternative to inhaled RBV in LTRs. Additional studies are required to determine whether LTRs with asymptomatic RSV infection would benefit from RBV therapy. DISCLOSURES: R. Miller, scynexis: Investigator, Research support.

Ejemplares similares