Citations

AbstractBackgroundAntifungal prophylaxis strategies for lung transplant recipients vary without consensus or standard of care. Our current study aims to identify antifungal prophylaxis practices in the United States.MethodsFrom November 29, 2018, to February 15, 2019, we emailed surveys to medical directors of adult lung transplant centers. An alternate physician representative was approached if continued non‐response after three survey attempts. Descriptive statistics were used to report findings.ResultsForty‐four of 62 (71.0%) eligible centers responded. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Networks were represented. Only four (9.1%) centers used pre‐transplant prophylaxis for prevention of tracheobronchitis (3 of 4) and invasive fungal disease (4 of 4). Thirty‐nine of forty (97.5%) centers used post‐transplant prophylaxis: 36 (90.0%) universal and 3 (7.5%) pre‐emptive/selective prophylaxis. Most centers used nebulized amphotericin with a systemic agent (26 of 36, 72.2%). Thirty‐two of thirty‐six (88.9%) centers continued universal prophylaxis beyond the hospital setting. Duration of prophylaxis ranged from the post‐transplant hospitalization to lifelong with most centers (25 of 36, 69.4%) discontinuing prophylaxis 6 months or less post‐transplant.ConclusionMost United States' lung transplant centers utilize a universal prophylaxis with nebulized amphotericin and a systemic triazole for 6 months or less post‐transplant. Very few centers use pre‐transplant antifungal prophylaxis.

Abstract Human herpesviruses 6 (HHV-6) A and B cause encephalitis in patients with hematologic malignancies, especially those undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In this cohort of 10 patients, persistent neurologic deficits associated with moderate to severe bilateral hippocampal atrophy were characteristic long-term findings, despite prolonged antiviral treatment.

AbstractBackgroundLung transplant recipients are prone to invasive fungal infections prompting many transplant centers to use prolonged triazole antifungal prophylaxis. From a practical standpoint, it is unclear if lung transplant recipients are able to continue prolonged or lifelong prophylaxis without premature discontinuation from side effects, drug interactions, development of fungal disease, or medication cost. We examined the number of patients that are able to reach a prophylactic endpoint and understand the reasons for early termination.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of all lung and heart‐lung transplant patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester from May 1, 2002 to December 31, 2017. Type, duration, and reason for discontinuation of triazole prophylaxis were examined.ResultsDuring the study period, 193 patients underwent lung or heart‐lung transplantation. Itraconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole were given to 180, 73, and 60 post‐transplant patients, respectively. Providers switched itraconazole to another prophylactic antifungal medication for reasons other than prophylactic completion in 61.8% (126 out of 204) of exposure episodes; this was similar with voriconazole (68.8%, 53 out of 77, P = 0.41). Posaconazole was actively discontinued significantly less often (18.3%, 11 out of 60, P < 0.05). The most common reasons for discontinuing itraconazole were malabsorption (15.5% of exposure episodes) and concern for breakthrough fungal infection (10.2%). In comparison, the most common reason for voriconazole discontinuation was side effect or intolerance (54.5% of VR exposure episodes vs 9.8% of IT exposure episodes, P < 0.05).ConclusionsItraconazole and posaconazole appeared to have fewer side effects prompting discontinuation than voriconazole, but itraconazole was discontinued more often because of malabsorption and clinical suspicion of fungal infections.

AbstractCytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common opportunistic infections that affect the outcome of solid organ transplantation. This updated guideline from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice provides evidence‐based and expert recommendations for screening, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients. CMV serology to detect immunoglobulin G remains as the standard method for pretransplant screening of donors and transplant candidates. Antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are the mainstays of CMV prevention. The lack of a widely applicable viral load threshold for diagnosis and preemptive therapy is highlighted, as a result of variability of CMV nucleic acid testing, even in the contemporary era when calibrators are standardized. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir remain as drugs of choice for CMV management. Strategies for managing drug‐resistant CMV infection are presented. There is an increasing use of CMV‐specific cell‐mediated immune assays to stratify the risk of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation, but their role in optimizing CMV prevention and treatment efforts has yet to be demonstrated. Specific issues related to pediatric transplant recipients are discussed.

Abstract In this cohort of 51 patients managed with retained “destination spacers” after the resection of infected joint prostheses, the presence of preoperative sinus drainage was significantly associated with reinfection. Chronic antimicrobial suppression after destination-spacer retention did not significantly prevent reinfections.

The clinical utility of ganciclovir therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is unknown. We retrospectively analyzed adult patients treated for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with ganciclovir with TDM between 2005 and 2015.

Abstract Background Current guidelines preferentially recommend valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis over PET in most D+R− organ transplant populations, but adequately powered direct comparative clinical trials are lacking. Methods D+R− LTR were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site and T-cell depleting induction) to receive either PET (weekly plasma CMV DNAemia at central laboratory for 100 days, with VGCV 900 mg bid for DNAemia at any level, until two consecutive negative weekly tests) or prophy (VGCV 900 mg qd for 100 days). The primary outcome was CMV disease by 12 months as adjudicated by an independent, blinded, endpoint committee in ITT population. Secondary outcomes were opportunistic infections (OIs) (invasive fungal and bacterial), neutropenia (ANC &lt; 1000/µL), acute rejection, graft loss, and mortality assessed at12 months. Results From October 2012 to June 2017, 205 patients were randomized at six centers; 100 to PET, 105 to prophy. The incidence of CMV disease was 9% (9/100) in PET and 19% (20/105) in prophy (P = 0.039) with majority of difference due to post-prophylaxis disease: 6% in PET vs. 17% in prophy (P = 0.027). CMV disease included syndrome in 55% (16/29) and end-organ in 45% (13/29), with similar proportions in two groups. Secondary outcomes were not different for PET and prophy groups: OIs (19% vs. 21%), neutropenia (34% vs.. 28%), acute rejection (27% vs. 27%), graft loss (2% vs. 2%), and mortality (10% vs. 6%), respectively, P &gt; 0.05 for all comparisons. Mortality at last follow-up (median 3.2 years) was not different for PET vs. prophy (14% vs. 18%, P = 0.43). Conclusions PET significantly reduced the incidence of CMV disease compared with prophy in D+R- LTR, and was associated with similar other clinical outcomes. Current guidelines should be revised to recommend PET over prophylaxis in this setting, and similar trials conducted in other D+R− transplant populations. (Funded by NIAID; ClinicalTrials.gov# NCT01552369.) Disclosures D. Winston, Merck: Investigator, Research support. Chimerix: Investigator, Research support. Shire: Investigator, Research support. Gilead: Investigator, Research support. Oxford Immunotech: Investigator, Research support. G. M. Lyon III, Shire: Investigator, institutional research support. Hookipa: Investigator, institutional research support. Merck: Investigator, institutional research support. F. P. Silveira, Shire: contracted clinical research, site investigator. A. P. Limaye, Merk: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. Astellas Pharma Inc.: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee. Helocyte Inc.: Consultant, Consulting fee.