Cytomegalovirus infection management in solid organ transplant recipients across European centers in the time of molecular diagnostics: An ESGICH survey

Background: Scant information is available about how transplant centers are managing their use of quantitative molecular testing (QNAT) assays for active cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection monitoring in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The current study was aimed at gathering information on current practices in the management of CMV infection across European centers in the era of molecular testing assays. Methods: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey study was conducted by the European Study Group of Infections in Immunocompromised Hosts (ESGICH) of the Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID). The invitation and a weekly reminder with a personal link to an Internet service provider (https://es.surveymonkey.com/) was sent to transplant physicians, transplant infectious diseases specialists, and clinical virologists working at 340 European transplant centers. Results: Of the 1181 specialists surveyed, a total of 173 responded (14.8%): 73 transplant physicians, 57 transplant infectious diseases specialists, and 43 virologists from 173 institutions located at 23 different countries. The majority of centers used QNAT assays for active CMV infection monitoring. Most centers preferred commercially available real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays over laboratory-developed procedures for quantifying CMV DNA load in whole blood or plasma. Use of a wide variety of DNA extraction platforms and RT-PCR assays was reported. All programs used antiviral prophylaxis, preemptive therapy, or both, according to current guidelines. However, the centers used different criteria for starting preemptive antiviral treatment, for monitoring systemic CMV DNA load, and for requesting genotypic assays to detect emerging CMV-resistant variants. Conclusions: Significant variation in CMV infection management in SOT recipients still remains across European centers in the era of molecular testing. International multicenter studies are required to achieve commutability of CMV testing and antiviral management procedures

Safety of Everolimus With Reduced Calcineurin Inhibitor Exposure in De Novo Kidney Transplants: An Analysis From the Randomized TRANSFORM Study

BACKGROUND: The safety profiles of standard therapy versus everolimus with reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy using contemporary protocols in de novo kidney transplant recipients have not been compared in detail. METHODS: TRANSFORM was a randomized, international trial in which de novo kidney transplant patients were randomized to everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (N = 1014) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure CNI (N = 1012), both with induction and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Within the safety population (everolimus 1014, MPA 1012), adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug occurred in 62.9% versus 59.2% of patients given everolimus or MPA, respectively (P = 0.085). Hyperlipidemia, interstitial lung disease, peripheral edema, proteinuria, stomatitis/mouth ulceration, thrombocytopenia, and wound healing complications were more frequent with everolimus, whereas diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, leukopenia, tremor, and insomnia were more frequent in the MPA group. The incidence of viral infections (17.2% versus 29.2%; P < 0.001), cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections (8.1% versus 20.1%; P < 0.001), CMV syndrome (13.6% versus 23.0%, P = 0.044), and BK virus (BKV) infections (4.3% versus 8.0%, P < 0.001) were less frequent with everolimus. CMV infection was less common with everolimus versus MPA after adjusting for prophylaxis therapy in the D+/R- subgroup (P < 0.001). Study drug was discontinued more frequently due to rejection or impaired healing with everolimus, and more often due to BKV infection or BKV nephropathy with MPA. CONCLUSIONS: De novo everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI yielded a comparable incidence, though a distinctly different pattern, of adverse events versus current standard of care. Both regimens are safe and effective, yet their distinct profiles may enable tailoring for individual kidney transplant recipients.status: publishe