Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (26)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sagedal, S.
Right arrow Articles by Rollag, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sagedal, S.
Right arrow Articles by Rollag, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18: 1899-1908
© 2003 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Pre-emptive therapy of CMVpp65 antigen positive renal transplant recipients with oral ganciclovir: a randomized, comparative study

Solbjørg Sagedal1, Knut P. Nordal1, Anders Hartmann1,3, Karsten Midtvedt1, Aksel Foss2, Anders Åsberg3, Miklos Degré4, Per Fauchald1 and Halvor Rollag4

1 Department of Internal Medicine, 2 Department of Surgery, 3 Laboratory for Renal Physiology and 4 Institute of Medical Microbiology, Rikshospitalet University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Solbjørg Sagedal, MD, Department of Medicine, Rikshospitalet University Hospital, N-0027 Oslo, Norway. Email: solbjorg.sagedal{at}rikshospitalet.no

Background. About one-quarter of renal transplant patients will suffer from symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease if no preventive therapeutic measures are taken. In this prospective, randomized single-centre study pre-emptive therapy with oral ganciclovir is compared with conventional deferred treatment.

Methods. Renal transplant recipients (n= 455) over 18 years of age were screened weekly for CMV pp65 antigenaemia during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation. If CMV pp65 antigen in leukocytes appeared within 8 weeks post-transplantation patients were randomized and included in the study. Five patients developed CMV disease before positive CMV pp65, and 14 patients with a positive antigen test developed CMV disease before randomization could take place, all these representing a limitation of the applicability of the results in the overall renal transplant population. Altogether 179 patients were not randomized for various reasons. Eighty patients completed the study, 42 were randomized to receive pre-emptive oral ganciclovir therapy and 38 to conventional deferred treatment (control group).

Results. Time from transplantation to start of ganciclovir capsules was 36 (12–60) days and duration of oral ganciclovir therapy was 49 (27–70) days, median (range). No patient in the pre-emptive treatment group, but nine of 38 patients (23.7%) in the control group, developed CMV disease during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation (P= 0.0009). In the period from 3 months to 1 year post-transplantation, two patients in each group developed CMV disease. There were no significant differences in acute rejection or renal function between treatment groups during the first post-transplant year.

Conclusions. Pre-emptive oral ganciclovir therapy in renal transplant recipients during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation effectively prevents CMV disease during this time period. The incidence of late CMV disease (3 months to 1 year after transplantation) was similar in the two groups, indicating that pre-emptive therapy does not result in late onset of CMV disease.

Keywords: cytomegalovirus disease; cytomegalovirus infection; ganciclovir capsules; kidney transplantation; pre-emptive therapy


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
B. H. Tan
CMV prophylaxis--to do or not to do, that is the question
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2006; 21(7): 1757 - 1761.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
A. C. Kalil and J. Stoner
Strategies To Prevent Organ Disease by Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Ann Intern Med, March 21, 2006; 144(6): 457 - 457.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
N. Singh and M. M. Wagener
Strategies to prevent organ disease by cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients.
Ann Intern Med, March 21, 2006; 144(6): 456 - 457.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
A. C. Kalil, J. Levitsky, E. Lyden, J. Stoner, and A. G. Freifeld
Meta-Analysis: The Efficacy of Strategies To Prevent Organ Disease by Cytomegalovirus in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Ann Intern Med, December 20, 2005; 143(12): 870 - 880.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
J. Hjelmesaeth, F. Muller, T. Jenssen, H. Rollag, S. Sagedal, and A. Hartmann
Is there a link between cytomegalovirus infection and new-onset posttransplantation diabetes mellitus? Potential mechanisms of virus induced {beta}-cell damage
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., November 1, 2005; 20(11): 2311 - 2315.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.