Efficacy and safety of valganciclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. A comparative randomised study of valacyclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. Prospective randomized trial to assess the value of preemptive oral therapy for CMV infection following liver transplantation. Randomized comparison of ganciclovir plus intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) with IVIG alone for prevention of primary cytomegalovirus disease in children receiving liver transplants. Prophylactic oral ganciclovir compared with deferred therapy for control of cytomegalovirus in renal transplant recipients. Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of oral ganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver-transplant recipients. The Oral Ganciclovir International Transplantation Study Group [corrected]. Ganciclovir ophthalmic gel, 0.15%: a valuable tool for treating ocular herpes. Valganciclovir prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus impairs lymphocyte proliferation and activation in renal transplant recipients. Randomized controlled trial of oral ganciclovir versus oral acyclovir after induction with intravenous ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease in cytomegalovirus-seropositive liver transplant recipients.
We compared the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir with those of oral ganciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients of organs from seropositive donors (D+/R-). In this randomised, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy study, 364 CMV D+/R- patients received valganciclovir 900 mg once daily or oral ganciclovir 1000 mg three times a day (tid) within 10 days of transplant and continued through 100 days. CMV disease, plasma viremia, acute graft rejection, graft loss and safety were analyzed up to 6 and 12 months post-transplant. Endpoint committee-defined CMV disease developed in 12.1% and 15.2% of valganciclovir and ganciclovir patients, respectively, by 6 months, though with a difference in the relative efficacy of valganciclovir and ganciclovir between organs (i.e. an organ type-treatment interaction). By 12 months, respective incidences were 17.2% and 18.4%, and the incidence of investigator-treated CMV disease events was comparable in the valganciclovir (30.5%) and ganciclovir (28.0%) arms. CMV viremia during prophylaxis was significantly lower with valganciclovir (2.9% vs. 10.4%; p=0.001), but was comparable by 12 months (48.5% valganciclovir vs 48.8% ganciclovir). Time-to-onset of CMV disease and to viremia were delayed with valganciclovir; rates of acute allograft rejection were generally lower with valganciclovir. Except for a higher incidence of neutropenia with valganciclovir (8.2%, vs 3.2% ganciclovir) the safety profile was similar for both drugs. Overall, once-daily oral valganciclovir was as clinically effective and well-tolerated as oral ganciclovir tid for CMV prevention in high-risk SOT recipients. An open, prospective, randomised study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of valacyclovir vs. oral ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. Eighty-three renal transplant recipients were assigned randomly to receive valacyclovir (n=43) or oral ganciclovir (n=40) for the first 3 months after transplantation. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics, primary renal disease, graft source, HLA matching, immunosuppressive therapy and donor-recipient CMV antibody status. CMV infection was diagnosed by detection of virus DNA in plasma with the Amplicor CMV Test. CMV disease was observed in only one patient belonging to the ganciclovir group, who developed enterocolitis 6 months post-transplantation. No difference was observed between the two treatment groups with respect to detection of CMV DNA, virus infections other than CMV, acute rejection episodes, and serum creatinine levels at 3 and 6 months following transplantation. An increased number of bacterial infections was noted in the ganciclovir group (p 0.003). No adverse reactions with either treatment were reported. The estimated cost of valacyclovir treatment was 20% higher than that of ganciclovir treatment. Overall, both valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir were found to be effective and safe for CMV prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients. Decisions regarding prophylactic regimens should include additional criteria, such as cost or possible development of resistance. With the development of sensitive tests to detect cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia, preemptive approaches become a reasonable alternative to general CMV prophylaxis. We performed a randomized trial comparing pp65-antigenemia guided preemptive therapy using oral ganciclovir with symptom-triggered intravenous ganciclovir treatment.
                Eighty-eight of 372 liver transplant recipients developed antigenemia early after orthotopic liver transplantation. Twenty-eight symptomatic patients with antigenemia were excluded from randomization and treated with intravenous ganciclovir. Sixty pp65-antigen-positive asymptomatic patients were randomized to receive either oral ganciclovir 3x1 g/day for 14 days (group 1) or no preemptive treatment (group 2). Patients that developed CMV disease were treated with intravenous ganciclovir 2x5 mg/kg body weight for 14 days. The high-risk (Donor+/Recipient-) patients were equally distributed in the two study groups.
                Three of 30 (10%) patients on oral ganciclovir developed mild to moderate CMV disease compared with 6/30 (20%) patients in the control group. In the Donor+/Recipient- patients, the incidence of CMV disease was 1/6 and 3/7. All disease episodes resolved after intravenous treatment. The 1- and 3-year patient and organ survival was the same in the study groups and in the patients with or without CMV infection. No deaths related to CMV occurred.
                The positive predictive value of pp65-antigenemia for the development of CMV disease was very low, and, in 28/88 patients (32%), antigenemia did not precede symptoms. Therefore, pp65-antigenemia is of limited value in deciding on the timing and need for ganciclovir therapy after liver transplantation. A randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the benefit of ganciclovir (5 mg/[kg x d]) for 30 days in addition to intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) for 16 weeks for prevention of primary cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in children receiving liver transplants. Patients were monitored for 6 months after transplantation. The two groups of patients (recipients of 29 ganciclovir plus IVIG and 27 recipients of IVIG alone) were similar in terms of age, sex, and underlying disease. The incidence of CMV disease among the ganciclovir plus IVIG recipients and the IVIG alone recipients was 17% and 26%, respectively, and the time to disease in these recipients was 46 days and 32 days, respectively. There was no difference between groups in terms of survival; episodes of rejection, bacteremia, or fungemia; use of immunosuppressive agents; and incidence of leukopenia or thrombocytopenia. These results suggest that a 4-week course of ganciclovir with IVIG is not more effective than IVIG alone for prevention of primary CMV disease. Since short-term prophylaxis with ganciclovir may delay the onset of CMV disease, further studies with a longer course of ganciclovir prophylaxis are warranted. Treatment with prophylactic oral acyclovir, intravenous ganciclovir, or immunoglobulins to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in renal transplantation is associated with variable efficacy and significant expense. We studied control of CMV in renal transplant recipients using either prophylactic oral ganciclovir or deferred therapy with intensive monitoring with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis.
                Forty-two recipients were followed for 6 months after transplantation. Ganciclovir (1000 mg p.o. t.i.d.; n=19) or acyclovir (200 mg p.o. b.i.d.; n=23) was begun at transplantation and continued for 12 weeks. PCR for CMV was performed on buffy-coat specimens every week for 15 weeks and at months 5 and 6.
                No patients in the ganciclovir group, compared with 14 of 23 patients (61%) in the deferred-therapy group (P<0.0001), developed CMV disease during the first 12 weeks. In the ganciclovir group, 4 of 19 patients (21%) subsequently experienced 5 episodes, whereas 14 patients in the deferred-therapy group experienced 18 episodes (P=0.013 for subjects and P=0.026 for episodes). The time to disease was also delayed in the ganciclovir group compared with the deferred-therapy group (133+/-17 days vs. 51+/-7 days; P<0.0001). Oral ganciclovir also prevented CMV viremia during prophylaxis (2/19 patients [11%] vs. 23/23 patients [100%]). Time to CMV viremia was delayed in the ganciclovir group; however, 13/19 patients (68%) ultimately showed PCR evidence for CMV viremia (P=0.005).
                An initial 12-week course of oral ganciclovir prevents CMV disease and infection in renal transplant recipients during prophylaxis, and the benefits persist after discontinuation. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a frequent cause of serious morbidity after solid-organ transplantation. The prophylactic regimens used to prevent CMV infection and disease have shown limited benefit in seronegative recipients. We studied the safety and efficacy of oral ganciclovir in the prevention of CMV disease following orthotopic liver transplantation.
                Between December, 1993, and April, 1995, 304 liver-transplant recipients were randomised to receive oral ganciclovir 1000 mg or matching placebo three times a day. Seronegative recipients of seronegative livers were excluded. Study drug was administered as soon as the patient was able to take medication by mouth (no later than day 10) until the 98th day after transplantation. Patients were assessed at specified times throughout the first 6 months after surgery for evidence of CMV infection, CMV disease, rejection, opportunistic infections, and possible drug toxicity.
                The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 6-month incidence of CMV disease was 29 (18.9%) of 154 in the placebo group, compared with seven (4.8%) of 150 in the ganciclovir group (p < 0.001). In the high-risk group of seronegative recipients (R-) of seropositive livers (D+), incidence of CMV disease was 11 (44.0%) of 25 in the placebo group, three (14.8%) of 21 in the ganciclovir group (p = 0.02). Significant benefit was also observed in those receiving antibodies to lymphocytes, where the incidence of CMV disease was 12 (32.9%) of 37 in the placebo group and two (4.6%) of 44 in the ganciclovir group (p = 0.002). Oral ganciclovir reduced the incidence of CMV infection (placebo 79 [51.5%] of 154; ganciclovir 37 [24.5%] of 150; p < 0.001) and also reduced symptomatic herpes-simplex infections (Kaplan-Meier estimates: placebo 36 [23.5%] of 154; ganciclovir five [3.5%] of 150; p < 0.001).
                Oral ganciclovir is a safe and effective method for the prevention of CMV disease after orthotopic liver transplantation. Ocular herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection remains a major cause of corneal blindness. Several topical and oral antiviral medications have been used to treat herpetic keratitis. Advances in topical ophthalmic antivirals have been made over the past several decades. The first antivirals that were discovered were cytotoxic, while the antivirals developed more recently, such as acyclovir and ganciclovir, have exceeded these drugs in both efficacy and tolerability. Commercially available outside of the US since 1996, ganciclovir ophthalmic gel, 0.15% (GCV 0.15%, European tradename: Virgan((R))) is sold in more than 30 countries and has become the standard of care in treating acute herpetic keratitis. GCV 0.15% has been studied in animal models of ocular herpes, in healthy volunteers, and in several clinical studies. It has been found to be safe and effective at treating acute superficial herpetic keratitis. Previous preclinical studies of ganciclovir have shown activity against several common adenovirus strains and one recent clinical study demonstrated clinical effect against adenoviral conjunctivitis. This review is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the GCV 0.15%, including a brief summary of the etiology and available treatments for ocular HSV, an explanation of GCV 0.15% mechanism of action, a compendium of preclinical and clinical GCV 0.15% studies, and an introduction into new areas of interest involving this drug. Antiviral prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus has been associated with reduced risk of allograft rejection and improved allograft survival after renal transplantation. This phenomenon might not be fully explained by preventing the indirect effects of cytomegalovirus. The effect of antiviral agents on lymphocyte function in patients treated with modern immunosuppression has not been studied to date.
                Adult renal transplant recipients were assigned to 3-month prophylaxis with either valganciclovir (900 mg once daily; n=19) or valacyclovir (2 g four times daily; n=17) as part of an ongoing randomized trial. Subsets of lymphocytes, lymphocyte proliferation and/or cytokine production after in vitro mitogen stimulation were evaluated at the end of prophylaxis and 1 month after withdrawal of antiviral drugs.
                Lymphocyte proliferation was significantly decreased both after phytohemagglutinine (25% ±15% versus 32% ±18%; P=0.025) and concanavalin A stimulation (17% ±9% versus 25% ±16%; P=0.011) during valganciclovir, but not valacyclovir therapy. Moreover, a lower activated T-cell count (CD3(+)HLA-DR(+) cells) was noted in valganciclovir-treated patients (13% ±10% versus 17% ±12% of total CD3(+) T-cells; P=0.005).
                Valganciclovir suppresses lymphocyte proliferation and activation in patients after renal transplantation. Without effective antiviral prophylaxis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation. In this randomized, controlled trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of oral ganciclovir with oral acyclovir after induction with intravenous (IV) ganciclovir for long-term prophylaxis of CMV disease in CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients.
                Patients were initially administered IV ganciclovir at a dose of 6 mg/kg per day from day 1 to day 14 after transplantation followed by either oral ganciclovir (1 g every 8 hr) or oral acyclovir (800 mg every 6 hr) from day 15 to day 100 after transplantation.
                CMV disease occurred in only 1 of 110 patients (0.9%) receiving ganciclovir compared with 8 of 109 patients (7.3%) receiving acyclovir within the first year after transplantation (P =0.019). There was one case of CMV colitis in the ganciclovir group, whereas four cases of CMV syndrome, three cases of CMV pneumonia, and one case of CMV hepatitis developed in the acyclovir group. The only death from CMV disease occurred in an acyclovir-treated patient with CMV pneumonia. Both oral ganciclovir and oral acyclovir were generally well tolerated. Reversible leukopenia (decline in white blood cell count to <3.0 x 10(9)/L) was more common with oral ganciclovir (38/110 patients, 35%) than with oral acyclovir (20/109 patients, 18%) (P =0.009). The emergence of ganciclovir-resistant strains of CMV was not found during the study.
                A prophylactic regimen of 2 weeks of IV ganciclovir followed by an additional 12 weeks of oral ganciclovir is superior to a similar regimen of IV ganciclovir followed by oral acyclovir and almost completely eliminates CMV disease after liver transplantation. This superior protection against CMV disease extends up to 1 year after transplantation and is not associated with ganciclovir resistance.
There is insufficient trial evidence to evaluate the effects of antiviral agents with controls or with each other. The rarity of the condition makes effectively powered clinical trials difficult to perform. The efficacy of newer antiviral agents with better bioavailability (e.g. valaciclovir, valganciclovir) for the treatment of neonatal disease needs to be evaluated in randomised trials. The efficacy of oral formulations need to be evaluated as they may be useful for infants with skin, eye or mouth HSV disease or in the treatment of infants with recurrences after the neonatal period.