Antiviral treatment approaches for cytomegalovirus prevention in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

• Published in: Transplantation reviews (Philadelphia, Pa.) Pa.), 2021-01, Vol.35 (1), p.100587-100587, Article 100587
• Main Authors: Raval, Amit D., Kistler, Kristin, Tang, Yuexin, Murata, Yoshihiko, Snydman, David R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: CMV; Cytomegalovirus; Kidney transplantation; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0955-470X; 1557-9816
• DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2020.100587

Various CMV anti-viral (AV) preventive strategies have been utilized in KTRs. We examined efficacy, safety and costs of CMV-AV prevention strategies in KTRs using a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications indexed in MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to November 2018). Thirty RCTs met inclusion criteria with 22 unique AV preventive strategies. Prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower rates of CMV infection/disease (CMVi/d) compared to no prophylaxis (pooled odds ratio, pOR with 95% confidence interval (CI): CMVi: 0.33; 0.19, 0.57; CMVd: 0.27; 0.19; 0.39). Preemptive therapy (PET) had lower rates of CMVd (0.29; 0.11, 0.77), and medical costs compared to no PET. Prophylaxis had significantly lower rates of early CMVi/d, and higher rates of late CMVi and hematological adverse events (leukopenia, 2.93; 1.22, 7.04), and similar overall medical costs compared to PET. Studies involving head-to-head comparison of different prophylaxis approaches showed mixed findings with respect to optimum dose, duration and route of administration on CMV outcomes. Although there was heterogeneity across populations and interventions, both prophylaxis and PET strategies reduced CMVi/d compared to no prophylaxis/PET and had differential safety profile in terms of hematological adverse events. For comprehensiveness we did not limit study inclusion based on date; the wide time-period may have contributed to the heterogeneity in prevention approaches which subsequently made pooling studies a challenge. Despite demonstrated efficacy of prophylaxis/PET, our findings highlight the potential need of a novel intervention with a better safety profile and perhaps improved outcomes. •Over the last 30 years there has been a persistent effort to optimize CMV prevention in kidney transplantation.•This review highlights the potential need for a novel intervention with a better safety profile and perhaps improved efficacy outcomes.•Patient sample and antiviral strategy heterogeneity across studies complicate understanding the best CMV prevention approach.