Cargando…

LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines preferentially recommend valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis over PET in most D+R− organ transplant populations, but adequately powered direct comparative clinical trials are lacking. METHODS: D+R− LTR were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site and T-cell depleting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Nina, Winston, Drew, Razonable, Raymund R, Lyon III, G Marshall, Silveira, Fernanda P, Wagener, Marilyn, Limaye, Ajit P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254092/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy229.2195
_version_ 1783373644354813952
author Singh, Nina
Winston, Drew
Razonable, Raymund R
Lyon III, G Marshall
Silveira, Fernanda P
Wagener, Marilyn
Limaye, Ajit P
author_facet Singh, Nina
Winston, Drew
Razonable, Raymund R
Lyon III, G Marshall
Silveira, Fernanda P
Wagener, Marilyn
Limaye, Ajit P
author_sort Singh, Nina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current guidelines preferentially recommend valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis over PET in most D+R− organ transplant populations, but adequately powered direct comparative clinical trials are lacking. METHODS: D+R− LTR were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site and T-cell depleting induction) to receive either PET (weekly plasma CMV DNAemia at central laboratory for 100 days, with VGCV 900 mg bid for DNAemia at any level, until two consecutive negative weekly tests) or prophy (VGCV 900 mg qd for 100 days). The primary outcome was CMV disease by 12 months as adjudicated by an independent, blinded, endpoint committee in ITT population. Secondary outcomes were opportunistic infections (OIs) (invasive fungal and bacterial), neutropenia (ANC < 1000/µL), acute rejection, graft loss, and mortality assessed at12 months. RESULTS: From October 2012 to June 2017, 205 patients were randomized at six centers; 100 to PET, 105 to prophy. The incidence of CMV disease was 9% (9/100) in PET and 19% (20/105) in prophy (P = 0.039) with majority of difference due to post-prophylaxis disease: 6% in PET vs. 17% in prophy (P = 0.027). CMV disease included syndrome in 55% (16/29) and end-organ in 45% (13/29), with similar proportions in two groups. Secondary outcomes were not different for PET and prophy groups: OIs (19% vs. 21%), neutropenia (34% vs.. 28%), acute rejection (27% vs. 27%), graft loss (2% vs. 2%), and mortality (10% vs. 6%), respectively, P > 0.05 for all comparisons. Mortality at last follow-up (median 3.2 years) was not different for PET vs. prophy (14% vs. 18%, P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: PET significantly reduced the incidence of CMV disease compared with prophy in D+R- LTR, and was associated with similar other clinical outcomes. Current guidelines should be revised to recommend PET over prophylaxis in this setting, and similar trials conducted in other D+R− transplant populations. (Funded by NIAID; ClinicalTrials.gov# NCT01552369.) [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: D. Winston, Merck: Investigator, Research support. Chimerix: Investigator, Research support. Shire: Investigator, Research support. Gilead: Investigator, Research support. Oxford Immunotech: Investigator, Research support. G. M. Lyon III, Shire: Investigator, institutional research support. Hookipa: Investigator, institutional research support. Merck: Investigator, institutional research support. F. P. Silveira, Shire: contracted clinical research, site investigator. A. P. Limaye, Merk: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. Astellas Pharma Inc.: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee. Helocyte Inc.: Consultant, Consulting fee.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6254092
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62540922018-11-28 LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial Singh, Nina Winston, Drew Razonable, Raymund R Lyon III, G Marshall Silveira, Fernanda P Wagener, Marilyn Limaye, Ajit P Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Current guidelines preferentially recommend valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis over PET in most D+R− organ transplant populations, but adequately powered direct comparative clinical trials are lacking. METHODS: D+R− LTR were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site and T-cell depleting induction) to receive either PET (weekly plasma CMV DNAemia at central laboratory for 100 days, with VGCV 900 mg bid for DNAemia at any level, until two consecutive negative weekly tests) or prophy (VGCV 900 mg qd for 100 days). The primary outcome was CMV disease by 12 months as adjudicated by an independent, blinded, endpoint committee in ITT population. Secondary outcomes were opportunistic infections (OIs) (invasive fungal and bacterial), neutropenia (ANC < 1000/µL), acute rejection, graft loss, and mortality assessed at12 months. RESULTS: From October 2012 to June 2017, 205 patients were randomized at six centers; 100 to PET, 105 to prophy. The incidence of CMV disease was 9% (9/100) in PET and 19% (20/105) in prophy (P = 0.039) with majority of difference due to post-prophylaxis disease: 6% in PET vs. 17% in prophy (P = 0.027). CMV disease included syndrome in 55% (16/29) and end-organ in 45% (13/29), with similar proportions in two groups. Secondary outcomes were not different for PET and prophy groups: OIs (19% vs. 21%), neutropenia (34% vs.. 28%), acute rejection (27% vs. 27%), graft loss (2% vs. 2%), and mortality (10% vs. 6%), respectively, P > 0.05 for all comparisons. Mortality at last follow-up (median 3.2 years) was not different for PET vs. prophy (14% vs. 18%, P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: PET significantly reduced the incidence of CMV disease compared with prophy in D+R- LTR, and was associated with similar other clinical outcomes. Current guidelines should be revised to recommend PET over prophylaxis in this setting, and similar trials conducted in other D+R− transplant populations. (Funded by NIAID; ClinicalTrials.gov# NCT01552369.) [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: D. Winston, Merck: Investigator, Research support. Chimerix: Investigator, Research support. Shire: Investigator, Research support. Gilead: Investigator, Research support. Oxford Immunotech: Investigator, Research support. G. M. Lyon III, Shire: Investigator, institutional research support. Hookipa: Investigator, institutional research support. Merck: Investigator, institutional research support. F. P. Silveira, Shire: contracted clinical research, site investigator. A. P. Limaye, Merk: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. Astellas Pharma Inc.: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee. Helocyte Inc.: Consultant, Consulting fee. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6254092/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy229.2195 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 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
spellingShingle Abstracts
Singh, Nina
Winston, Drew
Razonable, Raymund R
Lyon III, G Marshall
Silveira, Fernanda P
Wagener, Marilyn
Limaye, Ajit P
LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial
title LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial
title_full LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial
title_fullStr LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial
title_full_unstemmed LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial
title_short LB21. Preemptive Therapy (PET) vs. Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Disease in High-Risk Donor Seropositive/Recipient Seronegative (D+R−) Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): A NIH-Sponsored, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial
title_sort lb21. preemptive therapy (pet) vs. prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus (cmv) disease in high-risk donor seropositive/recipient seronegative (d+r−) liver transplant recipients (ltr): a nih-sponsored, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254092/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy229.2195
work_keys_str_mv AT singhnina lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial
AT winstondrew lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial
AT razonableraymundr lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial
AT lyoniiigmarshall lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial
AT silveirafernandap lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial
AT wagenermarilyn lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial
AT limayeajitp lb21preemptivetherapypetvsprophylaxisforpreventionofcytomegaloviruscmvdiseaseinhighriskdonorseropositiverecipientseronegativedrlivertransplantrecipientsltranihsponsoredrandomizedcontrolledmulticentertrial