Cytomegalovirus antigenemia directed pre-emptive prophylaxis with oral versus i.v. ganciclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in livertransplant recipients - A randomized, controlled trial
N. Singh et al., Cytomegalovirus antigenemia directed pre-emptive prophylaxis with oral versus i.v. ganciclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in livertransplant recipients - A randomized, controlled trial, TRANSPLANT, 70(5), 2000, pp. 717-722
Background. The efficacy of pre-emptively administered oral ganciclovir in
preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has not been documented in liver t
ransplant recipients. We sought to compare the efficacy of pre-emptive oral
ganciclovir with that of i.v. ganciclovir for the prevention of CMV diseas
e after liver transplantation, and to determine whether withholding prophyl
axis in the absence of CMV antigenemia, reliably identified patients in who
m no prophylaxis was necessary.
Methods. Surveillance cultures for CMV pp65 antigenemia were performed in a
ll patients at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16, Patients with CMV antigenemia
were randomized into two study groups, The experimental group received oral
ganciclovir for 6 weeks (2 g t.i.d. for 2 weeks, then 1 g t.i.d. for 4 wee
ks), and the control group received i.v. ganciclovir (5 mg/kg q 12 hr) for
7 days.
Results. Of 72 consecutive liver transplant recipients studied, CMV antigen
emia occurred in 31% (22 of 72), Twenty-two patients with asymptomatic anti
genemia were randomized to two study groups, CMV disease (viral syndrome) o
ccurred in 9% (1 of 11) of the patients in the i,v, ganciclovir group and i
n 0% (0 of 11) of the patients in the oral ganciclovir group. None of the s
tudy patients developed tissue invasive CMV disease. The median reduction i
n antigenemia level with oral ganciclovir was 55% at week 1, and 100% at we
ek 2, Overall, 64% of the patients by week 1, 93% by week 2, and 100% by we
ek 4 had antigenemia levels below the baseline after oral ganciclovir. Of 5
0 patients without CMV antigenemia, none developed CMV disease.
Conclusions. Pre-emptive prophylaxis based on CMV antigenemia can effective
ly target the patients for CMV prophylaxis; 69% of the patients never recei
ved antiviral prophylaxis and did not develop CMV disease. Antiviral therap
y instituted upon detection of antigenemia prevented tissue invasive CMV in
both ganciclovir groups. Pre-emptively administered oral ganciclovir was e
ffective as prophylaxis for CMV disease after liver transplantation.