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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |