Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society · 2016
Ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus infection in solid organ transplant recipients: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Young P G, Rubin J, Angarone M, Flaherty J, Penugonda S, Stosor V, Ison M G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus (GCV-R CMV) is an emerging challenge among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The literature suggests that about 1% of abdominal transplant recipients develop GCV-R CMV infection. The epidemiology and outcome of GCV-R CMV in SOT recipients who have received alemtuzumab induction is not well described.
METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a single-center, retrospective review of 2148 abdominal SOT recipients between January 2006 and July 2011 at our institution (n = 2148) was conducted to identify patients with proven or empirically treated GCV-R CMV. Descriptive statistics on collected demographics, clinical course, and therapeutic outcomes were performed.
RESULTS: Of 116 SOT recipient treated for CMV, 14 patients (12.1% of cases; 0.65% of all SOT patients) had proven or suspected GCV-R CMV. Eight (50%) developed GCV-R CMV while receiving valganciclovir (valGCV) prophylaxis. The remainder developed late-onset disease, after having completed an average 212 days (range 83-353) of prophylaxis. Resistance was clinically suspected an average of 103 days (range 10-455) after CMV infection was initially identified; 10 patients had confirmed genotypic resistance. Foscarnet therapy was associated with resolution of CMV in 13.
CONCLUSION: Suboptimal dosing of valGCV is associated with development of GCV-R CMV. Our observed rate of GCV-R CMV in alemtuzumab-induced patients is similar to rates seen to historical data for other induction agents.
METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a single-center, retrospective review of 2148 abdominal SOT recipients between January 2006 and July 2011 at our institution (n = 2148) was conducted to identify patients with proven or empirically treated GCV-R CMV. Descriptive statistics on collected demographics, clinical course, and therapeutic outcomes were performed.
RESULTS: Of 116 SOT recipient treated for CMV, 14 patients (12.1% of cases; 0.65% of all SOT patients) had proven or suspected GCV-R CMV. Eight (50%) developed GCV-R CMV while receiving valganciclovir (valGCV) prophylaxis. The remainder developed late-onset disease, after having completed an average 212 days (range 83-353) of prophylaxis. Resistance was clinically suspected an average of 103 days (range 10-455) after CMV infection was initially identified; 10 patients had confirmed genotypic resistance. Foscarnet therapy was associated with resolution of CMV in 13.
CONCLUSION: Suboptimal dosing of valGCV is associated with development of GCV-R CMV. Our observed rate of GCV-R CMV in alemtuzumab-induced patients is similar to rates seen to historical data for other induction agents.