			Home About us Contact

Oral Ganciclovir (oral + ganciclovir)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Improvement in Long-Term Renal Graft Survival due to CMV Prophylaxis with Oral Ganciclovir: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 5 2008
V. Kliem
Oral ganciclovir prophylaxis and intravenous preemptive therapy are competitive approaches to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after renal transplantation. This trial compared efficacy, safety and long-term graft outcome in 148 renal graft recipients randomized to ganciclovir prophylaxis (N = 74) or preemptive therapy (N = 74). Hierarchical testing revealed (i) patients with CMV infection had more severe periods of impaired graft function (creatinine clearancemax-min 25.0 ± 14.2 mL/min vs. 18.1 ± 12.5 mL/min for patients without CMV infection; p = 0.02),(ii) prophylaxis reduced CMV infection by 65% (13 vs. 33 patients; p < 0.0001) but (iii) creatinine clearance at 12 months was comparable for both regimes (54.0 ± 24.9 vs. 53.1 ± 23.7 mL/min; p = 0.92). No major safety issues were observed, and patient survival at 12 months was similar in both groups (5 deaths [6.8%] vs. 4 [5.4%], p = 1.0000). Prophylaxis significantly increased long-term graft survival 4 years posttransplant (92.2% vs. 78.3%; p = 0.0425) with a number needed to treat of 7.19. Patients with donor +/recipient + CMV serostatus had the lowest rate of graft loss following prophylaxis (0.0% vs. 26.8%; p = 0.0035). In conclusion, it appears that routine oral prophylaxis may improve long-term graft survival for most renal transplant patients. Preemptive therapy can be considered in low risk patients in combination with adequate CMV monitoring. [source]

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with valganciclovir in kidney, pancreas,kidney, and pancreas transplantation

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2004
Gaetano Ciancio
Abstract:, Cytomegalovirus, seen in more than 50% of solid organ transplant recipients, is responsible for numerous direct and indirect consequences, including infection with opportunistic pathogens and allograft rejection. Prophylaxis with intravenous ganciclovir has been the gold standard for prevention; however, intravenous treatment is expensive and carries risks of its own. Oral ganciclovir, to be effective, must be given in large, divided doses. Valganciclovir, the valine ester of ganciclovir, at 900 mg/day, provides oral bioavailability equivalent to that of intravenous ganciclovir and superior to that of oral ganciclovir. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of 3 months prophylaxis with valganciclovir in kidney, simultaneous pancreas,kidney, and pancreas transplantation. Of 161 patients, all of whom received potent immunosuppressive regimens and were followed for a mean of 440 days, only one developed cytomegalovirus infection, at 120 days post-transplantation. Two patients died, and two others lost their grafts. There were seven incidents of acute rejection. Only seven patients discontinued treatment early, five because of leukopenia. These results suggest that prophylaxis with 900 mg/day of valganciclovir for at least 3 months safely and effectively prevents cytomegalovirus infection in kidney, simultaneous pancreas,kidney and pancreas transplant recipients on highly potent immunosuppression. [source]

Kinetics of host immune responses and cytomegalovirus resistance in a liver transplant patient

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2009
Kirsten Schaffer
Among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative (D+/R,) cytomegalovirus (CMV) status is associated with the highest risk of ganciclovir-resistant CMV disease, which has been reported for patients receiving oral ganciclovir but not valganciclovir prophylaxis. We report a case of CMV breakthrough infection in a D+/R, liver transplant patient while he was receiving oral valganciclovir. Forty samples collected over 6 months were analyzed for the CMV viral load, lymphocyte counts, cytokine levels, and lymphocyte differentiation status. Genotypic resistance testing of the viral UL97 gene was performed when the patient failed to respond. CMV viremia occurred on day 50 post-transplant, and 5 samples taken between days 50 and 85 showed the wild-type UL97 genotype. The appearance of deletion 594-595 was observed from day 114 post-transplant. Viral loads declined when foscarnet was commenced and remained below 10,000 copies/mL when the lymphocyte count was greater than 1000/,L (P = 0.02). T cell responses revealed significant expansion of CD8+ terminal effector memory cells. CD4+ cells were largely populations of naïve and central memory cells. Circulating interleukin 10 (IL-10) levels correlated with the viral load (P < 0.0001). Seroconversion occurred on day 230. The CMV viral load in combination with lymphocyte counts and IL-10 may be a predictive marker for the risk of development of resistant CMV disease in D+/R, SOT patients. Liver Transpl 15:1199,1203, 2009. © 2009 AASLD. [source]

A Multicenter Study of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis up to Day 120 in CMV-Seropositive Lung Transplant Recipients

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 5 2009
V. Monforte
Seventy-six cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive lung transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir (900 mg/day) for CMV prophylaxis were compared with a group of 87 patients receiving oral ganciclovir (3000 mg/day). Prophylaxis was administered to day 120 post-transplantation and follow-up was 1 year. In addition, a study was conducted on risk factors for CMV infection/disease. CMV disease incidence was 7.9% and 16.1% for valganciclovir and oral ganciclovir, respectively (p = 0.11). Patients receiving valganciclovir had fewer viral syndromes (2.6% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.05), a similar rate of tissue-invasive disease (5.2% vs. 4.6%, p = ns), longer time-to-onset of CMV infection/disease (197.5 vs. 155.2 days, p < 0.05), and a lower probability of infection/disease while on prophylaxis (1.3% vs. 12.6%, p < 0.01). Nonetheless, leukopenia incidence was higher with valganciclovir (15.8% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.01), as was the need for treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects (11.8% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). CMV infection was similar in both groups (32.9% vs. 34.5%). Induction therapy with basiliximab and glucocorticosteroid treatment were independent risk factors for developing CMV infection/disease. In conclusion, valganciclovir prophylaxis results in a low incidence of CMV disease in lung transplant recipients and appears more effective than oral ganciclovir. Despite the comparatively higher incidence of adverse events with valganciclovir, the drug can be considered safe for prophylaxis. [source]

Monitoring plasma levels of ganciclovir in AIDS patients receiving oral ganciclovir as maintenance therapy for CMV retinitis

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, Issue 3 2000
C. Piketty
Objectives To investigate whether low ganciclovir serum levels in patients on maintenance oral ganciclovir therapy are associated with recurrence of CMV retinitis. Methods A prospective study of the plasma concentration of ganciclovir after initiation of maintenance oral ganciclovir therapy in 14 AIDS patients who had recovered from acute cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis. Results Five of the 14 patients exhibited a mean time to recurrence of 37 days. The mean trough plasma concentration of ganciclovir in these patients after 1 month of oral ganciclovir therapy, was 0.40 ± 0.30 mg/L. Nine patients had a mean time of progression of 263 days. The mean trough plasma concentration of ganciclovir in the latter patients was 0.80 ± 0.60 mg/L. Conclusions Patients exhibiting trough plasma levels of ganciclovir below 0.6 mg/L may be at higher risk of progression than patients who exhibited levels above 0.6 mg/L. [source]

Cost of prophylaxis in the management of cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant recipients

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2007
Federico Oppenheimer
Abstract:, Background:, Limited economic data exist on the use of valganciclovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. We compared the economics of sequential i.v. and oral ganciclovir prophylaxis vs. oral valganciclovir prophylaxis alone in high-risk (D+/R,) SOT patients. Methods:, A cost-minimization analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System comparing the cost of sequential ganciclovir prophylaxis (induction with i.v. ganciclovir 10 mg/kg daily for 14 d followed by oral ganciclovir 1 g t.i.d. for 3 months) vs. oral valganciclovir prophylaxis (900 mg once daily for 100 d). Resource utilization data for both regimens were obtained from the literature and from clinical records of 83 patients in nine Spanish hospitals. Results were expressed as average cost per patient treated. Results:, The average cost per patient treated with sequential ganciclovir or valganciclovir prophylaxis was ,3715.51 and ,3295.90, respectively. The higher cost of ganciclovir therapy was due to concomitant administration of anti-CMV immunoglobulin (,313.73), drug administration costs (,401.45), catheter culture tests (,13.64) and adverse events associated with catheter use (,3.30). Following a sensitivity analysis, taking into account dose and duration of drug, concomitant medications and adverse events, costs for valganciclovir and sequential therapy were similar. Conclusions:, Valganciclovir prophylaxis is as economical as sequential ganciclovir prophylaxis in high-risk D+/R, SOT patients. In addition, the once-daily dosing regimen of valganciclovir is more convenient, and avoids the complications associated with catheter use. [source]

Efficacy and safety of preemptive anti-CMV therapy with valganciclovir after kidney transplantation

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2007
Kai Lopau
Abstract:, Background:, CMV infections still pose a potentially serious threat to kidney transplant recipients and have a significant impact on graft as well as patient survival. The antiviral agent valganciclovir (VGCV) has a greater bioavailability after oral administration than oral ganciclovir (GCV) and can be considered a substitute for GCV. The substance is approved in North America and Europe for anti-CMV prophylaxis after organ transplantation. In this pilot study, we examined if VGCV could also be administered in preemptive treatment of CMV infections. Methods:, Twenty-eight renal transplant recipients suffering from 32 asymptomatic episodes of CMV infection were treated with VGCV and followed up. CMV infection was diagnosed by routine controls of pp65-antigenemia in pre-defined intervals. All patients received sequential quadruple immunosuppression. VGCV was given for up to 12 wk in a dosage adapted to renal graft function. Efficacy and safety parameters were monitored for 16 wk. Results:, Twenty-seven episodes of CMV antigenemia, two patients progressing to CMV syndrome and three patients progressing to CMV disease were treated. Primary efficiency was 79%, Four patients relapsed and were treated with a second course resulting in serological recovery. Two patients did not respond to oral VCGV and were switched to another antiviral agent. Graft function remained stable during and after treatment. Serious side effects were seen in seven patients, four patients complained of diarrhea and gastrointestinal pain, three patients suffered from leucopenia, in one of these treatment had to be temporary paused. Fifty-nine percent of all episodes were treated in a completely ambulatory setting. Conclusions:, VGCV can be considered as an option also for preemptive treatment of CMV infections after renal transplantation. The antiviral potency seems to be adequate, potential side effects are comparable with IV GCV. Because of the improved pharmacokinetics of VGCV the substance can be used to abbreviate or even completely avoid in-hospital care of CMV infections. [source]