Fernández Ruiz, Mario González Monte, Esther Aguado García, José María
Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies in seropositive kidney transplant recipients: an insight into current clinical practice. [artículo] - Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2015 - 28(9):1042-54.
Formato Vancouver:
Fernández Ruiz M, Arias M, Campistol JM, Navarro D, Gómez Huertas E, Gómez Márquez G et al; OPERA Study Group. Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies in seropositive kidney transplant recipients: an insight into current clinical practice. Transpl Int. 2015 Sep;28(9):1042-54.
PMID: 25864986
Contiene 45 referencias
There is notable heterogeneity in the implementation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention practices among CMV-seropositive (R+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. In this prospective observational study, we included 387 CMV R+ KT recipients from 25 Spanish centers. Prevention strategies (antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy) were applied according to institutional protocols at each site. The impact on the 12-month incidence of CMV disease was assessed by Cox regression. Asymptomatic CMV infection, acute rejection, graft function, non-CMV infection, graft loss, and all-cause mortality were also analyzed (secondary outcomes). Models were adjusted for a propensity score (PS) analysis for receiving antiviral prophylaxis. Overall, 190 patients (49.1%) received preemptive therapy, 185 (47.8%) antiviral prophylaxis, and 12 (3.1%) no specific intervention. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of CMV disease and asymptomatic infection were 3.6% and 39.3%, respectively. Patients on prophylaxis had lower incidence of CMV disease [PS-adjusted HR (aHR): 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01-0.79] and asymptomatic infection (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.72) than those managed preemptively, with no significant differences according to the duration of prophylaxis. All cases of CMV disease in the prophylaxis group occurred after prophylaxis discontinuation. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of CMV disease in CMV R+ KT recipients, although such benefit should be balanced with the risk of late-onset disease.
Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies in seropositive kidney transplant recipients: an insight into current clinical practice. [artículo] - Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2015 - 28(9):1042-54.
Formato Vancouver:
Fernández Ruiz M, Arias M, Campistol JM, Navarro D, Gómez Huertas E, Gómez Márquez G et al; OPERA Study Group. Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies in seropositive kidney transplant recipients: an insight into current clinical practice. Transpl Int. 2015 Sep;28(9):1042-54.
PMID: 25864986
Contiene 45 referencias
There is notable heterogeneity in the implementation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention practices among CMV-seropositive (R+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. In this prospective observational study, we included 387 CMV R+ KT recipients from 25 Spanish centers. Prevention strategies (antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy) were applied according to institutional protocols at each site. The impact on the 12-month incidence of CMV disease was assessed by Cox regression. Asymptomatic CMV infection, acute rejection, graft function, non-CMV infection, graft loss, and all-cause mortality were also analyzed (secondary outcomes). Models were adjusted for a propensity score (PS) analysis for receiving antiviral prophylaxis. Overall, 190 patients (49.1%) received preemptive therapy, 185 (47.8%) antiviral prophylaxis, and 12 (3.1%) no specific intervention. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of CMV disease and asymptomatic infection were 3.6% and 39.3%, respectively. Patients on prophylaxis had lower incidence of CMV disease [PS-adjusted HR (aHR): 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01-0.79] and asymptomatic infection (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.72) than those managed preemptively, with no significant differences according to the duration of prophylaxis. All cases of CMV disease in the prophylaxis group occurred after prophylaxis discontinuation. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of CMV disease in CMV R+ KT recipients, although such benefit should be balanced with the risk of late-onset disease.
