Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Antiviral Prophylaxis (antiviral + prophylaxis)
Selected AbstractsHepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy: Diagnosis and managementJOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, Issue 5 2010John S Lubel Abstract Nearly one third of the world's population have been infected with hepatitis B and the virus is endemic in many Asian countries. With increasing life expectancy and the expected global increase in cancer, chemotherapy induced reactivation of hepatitis B is likely to become an increasing problem. Patients with significant levels of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA in serum prior to chemotherapy and patients receiving intensive chemotherapy for hematological malignancies appear particularly at risk. Most patients who suffer reactivation of hepatitis B are positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prior to chemotherapy and are therefore easily identifiable by routine screening. In addition, the very large population of patients who have been exposed to the virus and have apparently cleared the virus as assessed by serological testing (HBsAg negative/hepatitis B core antibody [HBcAb] positive) may also be at risk of reactivation. These patients should be monitored and in some cases receive prophylaxis during chemotherapy. Published experience with antiviral prophylaxis has largely been limited to the nucleoside analogue, lamivudine. The commencement of antiviral prophylaxis prior to chemotherapy and its continuation until restitution of normal host immunity is the cornerstone to effective prevention of hepatitis B reactivation. This review summarizes the important issues related to HBV reactivation and suggests an algorithm for managing these patients in the clinical setting. [source] Lamivudine monoprophylaxis and adefovir salvage for liver transplantation in chronic hepatitis B: A seven-year follow-up study,,JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, Issue 2 2009Jenny L. Limquiaco Abstract In Asia Pacific countries, lamivudine is used frequently as the sole prophylaxis for hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after liver transplantation due to financial consideration. The aim was to evaluate the long-term outcome of lamivudine monoprophylaxis with adefovir salvage for liver transplantation in chronic hepatitis B. Consecutive chronic hepatitis B patients who received liver transplantation from 1999 to 2003 and with at least 12 months follow up were studied. Lamivudine monotherapy was used for antiviral prophylaxis and adefovir was added as salvage treatment for recurrence of HBV. Twenty-four patients were followed up for 272 (76,372) weeks post-liver transplantation. HBV recurrence developed in seven patients with cumulative probabilities of 8%, 13%, 28%, 35%, 35%, and 49% in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 years. At the time of recurrence of HBV, the HBV DNA level was 910,244 (363 to 9,×,108) copies/ml. On direct sequencing, four patients had rtM204I mutation and three patients HBV DNA levels were too low for sequencing. Six patients had elevated ALT (two patients had ALT >1,000 IU/L and jaundice) but none had hepatic encephalopathy. After adefovir treatment for 150 (91,193) weeks, six (86%) patients had normal ALT. HBV DNA was undetectable in two (29%) patients, 100,1,000 copies/ml in two (29%) patients and 10,000,100,000 copies/ml in three (43%) patients on last visit. No genotypic resistance to adefovir was detected. Lamivudine followed by adefovir salvage is effective for prophylaxis of recurrence of HBV after liver transplantation up to 7 years. J. Med. Virol. 81:224,229, 2009. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Screening for hepatitis B in chemotherapy patients: survey of current oncology practicesALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 2 2010T. T. TRAN Summary Background, Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation occurs in up to 78% of patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for nonhepatic malignancies. Reactivation can lead to hepatic dysfunction, jaundice and fulminant hepatic failure. Current recommendations include screening patients at risk for HBV prior to immunosuppressive therapy and initiating antiviral prophylaxis in patients with chronic HBV. Aim, To investigate current practice among oncologists regarding HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis in candidates for chemotherapy. Methods, A survey was sent to American Medical Association registered oncologists assessing demographics and HBV screening practices. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. Results, In all, 265 responses were received. Office-based physicians were less likely to screen for HBV prior to chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Years in practice varied: 51% with <5 years, 29% with 5,15 years and 18% with >15 years, with no difference in screening practices between groups (P = N.S.). Responders screen for HBV as follows: never , 20%, only in the presence of abnormal liver biochemistries , 30%, risk factors or history of hepatitis , 38%. In patients with known HBV, 75% of oncologists refer to specialists, 7% initiate therapy, while 15% do not refer or initiate therapy, most of whom are in an office setting (P = 0.02). Conclusions, Twenty per cent of oncologists never screen for HBV prior to initiating chemotherapy. Office-based physicians were less likely to screen, treat or refer to a specialist prior to chemotherapy. Greater education regarding risk of HBV reactivation is needed for clinicians treating patients with immunosuppressive therapies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther,31, 240,246 [source] Review article: hepatitis B and liver transplantationALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 8 2006D. MUTIMER Summary Liver transplantation is an excellent treatment for hepatitis B virus infected patients who have acute or chronic liver failure and/or primary liver cancer. Advances in antiviral prophylaxis prevent clinically significant graft re-infection for the majority of patients. Graft and patient survival has improved significantly during the past decade, and results of transplantation for hepatitis B virus are now superior to those achieved for most other indications. In particular, the availability of lamivudine and adefovir have transformed outcome. The addition of lamivudine to passive immunoprophylaxis with hepatitis B virus immunoglobulin prevents re-infection in most cases. Adefovir should be added to this combination when the patient develops lamivudine resistance before transplantation. The significance of serum hepatitis B virus DNA positivity in the absence of circulating hepatitis B surface antigen is uncertain. Hepatitis B virus infection of the graft can be observed when prophylaxis is inadequate, when the donor liver contains latent hepatitis B virus infection (so-called de novo infection from the hepatitis B virus core antibody positive donor), and when the donor is exposed to third party infection (sexual or nosocomial transmission). Established hepatitis B virus graft infection is a good indication for combination nucleoside analogue therapy. Combination therapy can achieve sustained suppression of viral replication, and hepatitis B e antigen and hepatitis B surface antigen clearance can also be observed. [source] Clinical reactivation after liver transplantation with an unusual minor strain of hepatitis B virus in an occult carrierLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 8 2006Bernhard Zöllner Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA is detectable in a number of liver transplant candidates who are negative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). After liver transplantation (LT), such patients may have molecular and/or serologic evidence of HBV replication. However, clinical disease from reactivation of occult HBV infection after LT has not been described. We report a patient who underwent LT for cryptogenic cirrhosis and had to be retransplanted twice for hepatic artery thrombosis. The patient was negative for HBsAg and positive for anti,hepatitis B core (HBc) and anti-HBs before all LT procedures and developed acute hepatitis B shortly after receiving the third graft. The HBV strain isolated at that time exhibited an unusual in frame insertion of a CAG motif within the HBV polymerase (HBVINS+). HBVINS+ was detected retrospectively as a minor species in pretransplantation sera and the explanted native liver by insertion-specific polymerase chain reaction. This case in an occult HBV carrier shows that clinically apparent, endogenous reinfection of the graft may occur with minor HBV variants that are not detectable in pretransplantation samples by standard diagnostic procedures. This has implications for the analysis of sources of acute hepatitis B in patients after LT and possibly for consideration of antiviral prophylaxis in anti-HBc/anti-HBs/HBV DNA-positive patients. Liver Transpl 12:1283,1289, 2006. © 2006 AASLD. [source] Who among cytomegalovirus-seropositive liver transplant recipients is at risk for cytomegalovirus infection?LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 6 2005Nina Singh A vast majority of the transplant recipients are cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive (R+). We sought to assess variables predictive of CMV infection, specifically in R+ liver transplant recipients. Study patients comprised 182 consecutive liver transplant recipients who survived at least 14 days after transplantation. Surveillance testing was used to detect CMV infection. Pre-emptive therapy was employed for the prevention of CMV disease, however, no antiviral prophylaxis was used for CMV infection. CMV infection developed in 32.5% (38 of 117) of R+ patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of R,/D+, and 3.8% (1 of 26) of R,/D, patients. In R+ patients, Hispanic race (21.6% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.06), donor CMV seropositivity (73.7% vs. 45.6%, P = 0.005), and hepatocellular carcinoma (23.7% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.05) correlated with a higher risk of CMV infection. In a multivariate model, Hispanic race (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.03-11.6, P = 0.045), donor CMV serostatus (OR: 4.0, 95% CI: 1.6-10.2, P = 0.003) and hepatocellular carcinoma (OR: 5.8, 95% CI: 1.6-20.5, P = 0.006) were all significant independent predictors of CMV infection. The aforementioned variables did not portend a higher risk of CMV infection in R,/D+ patients; donor CMV seropositivity overwhelmed all other risk factors in R, patients (P < 0.00001). In conclusion, CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients at risk for CMV infection can be identified based on readily assessable variables. Preventive strategies may be selectively targeted toward these patients. (Liver Transpl 2005;11:700,704.) [source] Acyclovir-resistant herpes simplex virus pneumonia post-unrelated stem cell transplantation: A word of cautionPEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 8 2007Haydar Frangoul Abstract: HSV causes serious complications in immunocompromised patients, especially SCT recipients. Although ACV is an effective antiviral prophylaxis, the emergence of ACV resistance is a growing problem. The authors describe two cases of fatal ACV-resistant HSV in two pediatric patients following unrelated donor SCT. Despite the in vitro sensitivity of the HSV isolates to foscarnet, both patients failed to respond to foscarnet therapy. Other antiviral therapies should be considered in those patients who fail to show rapid clinical improvement. [source] Clinical Predictors of Relapse after Treatment of Primary Gastrointestinal Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant RecipientsAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2010A. J. Eid Primary gastrointestinal cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after solid organ transplantation (SOT) is difficult to treat and may relapse. Herein, we reviewed the clinical records of CMV D+/R, SOT recipients with biopsy-proven gastrointestinal CMV disease to determine predictors of relapse. The population consisted of 26 kidney (13 [50%]), liver (10 [38%]) and heart (3 [12%]) transplant recipients who developed gastrointestinal CMV disease at a median of 54 (interquartile range [IQR]: 40,70) days after stopping antiviral prophylaxis. Except for one patient, all received induction intravenous ganciclovir (mean ± SD, 33.8 ± 19.3 days) followed by valganciclovir (27.5 ± 13.3 days) in 18 patients. Ten patients further received valganciclovir maintenance therapy (41.6 ± 28.6 days). The median times to CMV PCR negativity in blood was 22.5 days (IQR: 16.5,30.7) and to normal endoscopic findings was 27.0 days (IQR: 21.0,33.5). CMV relapse, which occurred in seven (27%) patients, was significantly associated with extensive disease (p = 0.03). CMV seroconversion, viral load, treatment duration, maintenance therapy and endoscopic findings at the end of therapy were not significantly associated with CMV relapse. In conclusion, an extensive involvement of the gastrointestinal tract was significantly associated with CMV relapse. However, endoscopic evidence of resolution of gastrointestinal disease did not necessarily translate into a lower risk of CMV relapse. [source] Cell-Mediated Immunity to Predict Cytomegalovirus Disease in High-Risk Solid Organ Transplant RecipientsAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 5 2009D. Kumar Late-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease commonly occurs after discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis. We determined the utility of testing CD8+ T-cell response against CMV as a predictor of late-onset CMV disease after a standard course of antiviral prophylaxis. Transplant patients at high-risk for CMV disease were enrolled. CD8+ T-cell-mediated immunity (CMI) was tested using the QuantiFERON-CMV assay at baseline, 1, 2 and 3 months posttransplant by measurement of interferon-, response to whole blood stimulation with a 21-peptide pool. The primary outcome was the ability of CMI testing to predict CMV disease in the first 6 months posttransplant. There were 108 evaluable patients (D+/R+ n = 39; D-/R+ n = 34; D+/R- n = 35) of whom 18 (16.7%) developed symptomatic CMV disease. At the end of prophylaxis, CMI was detectable in 38/108 (35.2%) patients (cutoff 0.1 IU/mL interferon-,). CMV disease occurred in 2/38 (5.3%) patients with a detectable interferon-, response versus 16/70 (22.9%) patients with a negative response; p = 0.038. In the subgroup of D+/R- patients, CMV disease occurred in 1/10 (10.0%) patients with a detectable interferon-, response (cutoff 0.1 IU/mL) versus 10/25 (40.0%) patients with a negative CMI, p = 0.12. Monitoring of CMI may be useful for predicting late-onset CMV disease. [source] Malignancy After Heart Transplantation: Incidence, Prognosis and Risk FactorsAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 5 2008M. G. Crespo-Leiro The Spanish Post-Heart-Transplant Tumour Registry comprises data on neoplasia following heart transplantation (HT) for all Spanish HT patients (1984,2003). This retrospective analysis of 3393 patients investigated the incidence and prognosis of neoplasia, and the influence of antiviral prophylaxis. About 50% of post-HT neoplasias were cutaneous, and 10% lymphomas. The cumulative incidence of skin cancers and other nonlymphoma cancers increased with age at HT and with time post-HT (from respectively 5.2 and 8.9 per 1000 person-years in the first year to 14.8 and 12.6 after 10 years), and was greater among men than women. None of these trends held for lymphomas. Induction therapy other than with IL2R-blockers generally increased the risk of neoplasia except when acyclovir was administered prophylactically during the first 3 months post-HT; prophylactic acyclovir halved the risk of lymphoma, regardless of other therapies. Institution of MMF during the first 3 months post-HT reduced the incidence of skin cancer independently of the effects of sex, age group, pre-HT smoking, use of tacrolimus in the first 3 months, induction treatment and antiviral treatment. Five-year survival rates after first tumor diagnosis were 74% for skin cancer, 20% for lymphoma and 32% for other tumors. [source] Cytomegalovirus in transplantation , challenging the status quoCLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 2 2007Jay A Fishman Abstract:, Background:, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients causes both ,,direct'' and ,,indirect'' effects including allograft rejection, decreased graft and patient survival, and predisposition to opportunistic infections and malignancies. Options for CMV prevention include pre-emptive therapy, whereby anti-CMV agents are administered based on sensitive viral assays, or universal prophylaxis of all at-risk patients. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficacy, costs, and side effects. Standards of care for prophylaxis have not been established. Methods:, A committee of international experts was convened to review the available data regarding CMV prophylaxis and to compare preventative strategies for CMV after transplantation from seropositive donors or in seropositive recipients. Results:, Pre-emptive therapy requires frequent monitoring with subsequent treatment of disease and associated costs, while universal prophylaxis results in greater exposure to potential toxicities and costs of drugs. The advantages of prophylaxis include suppressing asymptomatic viremia and prevention of both direct and indirect effects of CMV infection. Meta analyses reveal decreased in mortality for patients receiving CMV prophylaxis. Costs associated with prophylaxis are less than for routine monitoring and pre-emptive therapy. The optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis remains undefined. Extended prophylaxis may improve clinical outcomes in the highest-risk patient populations including donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative renal transplants and in CMV-infected lung and heart transplantation. Conclusions:, Prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in transplant recipients, affecting both allograft and patient survival. More studies are necessary to define optimal prophylaxis regimens. [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||