The ganciclovir implant plus oral ganciclovir versus parenteral cidofovir for the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: The ganciclovir cidofovir cytomegalovirus retinitis trial

Authors
Citation
Da. Jabs, The ganciclovir implant plus oral ganciclovir versus parenteral cidofovir for the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: The ganciclovir cidofovir cytomegalovirus retinitis trial, AM J OPHTH, 131(4), 2001, pp. 457-467
Citations number
39
Categorie Soggetti
Optalmology,"da verificare
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
ISSN journal
00029394 → ACNP
Volume
131
Issue
4
Year of publication
2001
Pages
457 - 467
Database
ISI
SICI code
0002-9394(200104)131:4<457:TGIPOG>2.0.ZU;2-S
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the regimen of the ganciclovir implant plus oral gancic lovir to one of intravenous cidofovir for the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and cyt omegalovirus retinitis were randomized either to the regimen of the gancicl ovir implant plus oral ganciclovir, 1 gm three times daily, or intravenous cidofovir, 5 mg/kg once weekly for two doses, followed by 5 mg/kg every oth er week. RESULTS: Mortality was similar between the two treatment groups. Mortality rates were 0.41 per person-year in patients assigned to the ganciclovir reg imen and 0.49 per person-year in patients assigned to cidofovir (P = .59). Ocular outcomes were similar between the two groups. Retinitis progression occurred at a rate of 0.67 per person-year in the ganciclovir group and 0.7 1 per person-year in the cidofovir group (P = .72), A loss of visual acuity of 15 letters or more occurred at a rate of 0.78 per person-year in the ga nciclovir group and 0.47 per person-year in the cidofovir group (P = .28). The rate of loss of visual field was 7 degrees per month in the ganciclovir group and 2 degrees per month in the cidofovir group (P = .048). Vitreous hemorrhage was more common in the ganciclovir implant group (0.13 per perso n year) than in the cidofovir group (no cases, P = .014), whereas uveitis a ppeared to be more common in the cidofovir group (0.35 per person-year) tha n in the ganciclovir group (0.09 per person-year, P = .066). Nephrotoxicity (serum creatinine 1.6 mg/dL or greater) occurred at a rate of 0.18 per per son-year in the ganciclovir group and 0.48 per person-year in the cidofovir group (P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: Although the small number of patients in this study limits def initive interpretation, these data suggest that in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, the regimens of the ganciclovir implant plus oral ganciclovir and of intravenous cidofovir are similar for controlling cytome galovirus retinitis and preventing visual loss but have different side effe cts. (Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131:457-467. (C) 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc. A ll rights reserved).