Both preemptive therapy and universal prophylaxis are used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after transplantation. Randomized trials comparing both strategies are sparse. Renal transplant recipients at risk for CMV (D+/R−, D+/R+, D−/R+) were randomized to 3-month prophylaxis with valacyclovir (2 g q.i.d., n = 34) or preemptive therapy with valganciclovir (900 mg b.i.d. for a minimum of 14 days, n = 36) for significant CMV DNAemia (≥2000 copies/mL by quantitative PCR in whole blood) assessed weekly for 16 weeks and at 5, 6, 9 and 12 months. The 12-month incidence of CMV DNAemia was higher in the preemptive group (92% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) while the incidence of CMV disease was not different (6% vs. 9%, p = 0.567). The onset of CMV DNAemia was delayed in the valacyclovir group (37 ± 22 vs. 187 ± 110 days, p < 0.001). Significantly higher rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection during 12 months was observed in the preemptive group (36% vs. 15%, p = 0.034). The average CMV-associated costs per patient were $5525 and $2629 in preemptive therapy and valacyclovir, respectively (p < 0.001). However, assuming the cost of $60 per PCR test, there was no difference in overall costs. In conclusion, preemptive valganciclovir therapy and valacyclovir prophylaxis are equally effective in the prevention of CMV disease after renal transplantation.
Valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir are equally effective in the prevention of CMV disease after renal transplantation. Both regimens are cost-effective. Valacyclovir is associated with a significantly reduced risk of acute rejection compared with both ganciclovir prophylaxis and deferred therapy.
Oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir reduce the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after renal transplantation (RTx). Our study was designed to compare the efficacy, costs, and safety of oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir in the prophylaxis of CMV disease over the first 6 months after RTx. A total of 38 patients was randomized to 3-month treatment with either oral ganciclovir (1 g t.i.d., n = 14, GAN group) or oral valacyclovir (2 g q.i.d., n= 12, VAL group). A third group (C, n= 12) received no prophylaxis. The patients were monitored by CMV-nested PCR in whole blood. No differences were found between the groups in their demographic characteristics, immunosuppressive protocols, or donor and recipient CMV serology. Thirty-six out of 38 (94.7%) recipients were CMV-seropositive. Over the 6-month post-RTx period, there were 13 episodes of CMV disease in eight (66.7%) patients of the C group compared with none in the GAN and VAL groups (P=0.0005, GAN vs C; P = 0.001, VAL vs C). The incidence of CMV viremia was 30.8%, 50.0%, and 91.7% in the GAN, VAL, and C groups, respectively (P = 0.004, GAN vs C; P = 0.07,
Oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir reduce the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after renal transplantation (RTx). Our study was designed to compare the efficacy, costs, and safety of oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir in the prophylaxis of CMV disease over the first 6 months after RTx. A total of 38 patients was randomized to 3-month treatment with either oral ganciclovir (1 g t.i.d., n = 14, GAN group) or oral valacyclovir (2 g q.i.d., n= 12, VAL group). A third group (C, n= 12) received no prophylaxis. The patients were monitored by CMV-nested PCR in whole blood. No differences were found between the groups in their demographic characteristics, immunosuppressive protocols, or donor and recipient CMV serology. Thirty-six out of 38 (94.7%) recipients were CMV-seropositive. Over the 6-month post-RTx period, there were 13 episodes of CMV disease in eight (66.7%) patients of the C group compared with none in the GAN and VAL groups (P=0.0005, GAN vs C; P = 0.001, VAL vs C). The incidence of CMV viremia was 30.8%, 50.0%, and 91.7% in the GAN, VAL, and C groups, respectively (P = 0.004, GAN vs C; P = 0.07,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.