-
Frontiers in Microbiology 2023Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) is one of the main causes of serious complications in immunocompromised patients and after congenital infection. There are currently drugs... (Review)
Review
Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) is one of the main causes of serious complications in immunocompromised patients and after congenital infection. There are currently drugs available to treat HCMV infection, targeting viral polymerase, whose use is complicated by toxicity and the emergence of resistance. Maribavir and letermovir are the latest antivirals to have been developed with other targets. The approval of letermovir represents an important innovation for CMV prevention in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, whereas maribavir allowed improving the management of refractory or resistant infections in transplant recipients. However, in case of multidrug resistance or for the prevention and treatment of congenital CMV infection, finding new antivirals or molecules able to inhibit CMV replication with the lowest toxicity remains a critical need. This review presents a range of molecules known to be effective against HCMV. Molecules with a direct action against HCMV include brincidofovir, cyclopropavir and anti-terminase benzimidazole analogs. Artemisinin derivatives, quercetin and baicalein, and anti-cyclooxygenase-2 are derived from natural molecules and are generally used for different indications. Although they have demonstrated indirect anti-CMV activity, few clinical studies were performed with these compounds. Immunomodulating molecules such as leflunomide and everolimus have also demonstrated indirect antiviral activity against HCMV and could be an interesting complement to antiviral therapy. The efficacy of anti-CMV immunoglobulins are discussed in CMV congenital infection and in association with direct antiviral therapy in heart transplanted patients. All molecules are described, with their mode of action against HCMV, preclinical tests, clinical studies and possible resistance. All these molecules have shown anti-HCMV potential as monotherapy or in combination with others. These new approaches could be interesting to validate in clinical trials.
PubMed: 38053548
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1321116 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause death in solid organ transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS
We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.
Topics: Humans; Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Bias; Cause of Death; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Ganciclovir; Organ Transplantation; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transplant Recipients; Valacyclovir; Valganciclovir
PubMed: 38700045
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003774.pub5 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Jan 2021Various 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33190040
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2020.100587 -
Biology of Blood and Marrow... Oct 2018Over the past 25 years, several randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of different antiviral agents for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Antiviral Agents for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Over the past 25 years, several randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of different antiviral agents for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. We performed a systematic literature review, conventional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis using a random-effects model and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as effect estimates. Fifteen randomized controlled trials were identified, including 7 different antiviral agents: acyclovir, ganciclovir, maribavir, brincidofovir, letermovir, valacyclovir, and vaccine. Twelve trials used placebo as comparator while 3 trials compared different antiviral agents. We found evidence for CMV disease and infection being significantly reduced by antiviral prophylaxis, with an RR of .66 (95% CI, .48 to .90) and .63 (95% CI, .50 to .79). Across the network, ganciclovir showed the best relative efficacy for CMV disease while letermovir provided first rank of being the best option for CMV infection. The risk for death was not significantly influenced by antiviral prophylaxis in the meta-analysis, with an RR of .92 (95% CI, .78 to 1.08), as well as in the network meta-analysis. In terms of safety, letermovir was at least similar in comparison with placebo and most agents while both letermovir and acyclovir showed significantly reduced risk for serious adverse events compared with ganciclovir, with RRs of .55 (95% CI, .30 to 1.00) for letermovir and .63 (95% CI, .42 to .93) for acyclovir. With a probability of 81%, letermovir appears to be the best option in terms of safety. Future randomized head-to-head comparisons are needed to evaluate the definite efficacy and safety of different prophylactic strategies.
Topics: Acetates; Acyclovir; Allografts; Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Female; Ganciclovir; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Male; Quinazolines; Ribonucleosides; Risk Factors; Valacyclovir
PubMed: 29777868
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.05.017 -
Antiviral Research Mar 2019Double-stranded (ds) DNA virus infections often occur concomitantly in immunocompromised patients. We performed a systematic search of published in vitro activity for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Double-stranded (ds) DNA virus infections often occur concomitantly in immunocompromised patients. We performed a systematic search of published in vitro activity for nine approved and investigational antivirals to understand the spectrum of in vitro activity against dsDNA viruses.
METHODS
A literature search was performed (PubMed and the WoS Core Collection) using keywords related to: 1) targeted approved/developmental antivirals (acyclovir, artesunate, brincidofovir, cidofovir, cyclopropavir (filociclovir), foscarnet, ganciclovir, letermovir, and maribavir); 2) pathogenic dsDNA viruses; 3) in vitro activity. We summarized data from 210 publications.
RESULTS
Activity against ≤3 viruses was documented for maribavir (cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus), and letermovir, while activity against > 3 viruses was shown for ganciclovir, cidofovir, acyclovir, foscarnet, cyclopropavir, artesunate, and brincidofovir. The EC values of brincidofovir were the lowest, ranging from 0.001 to 0.27 μM, for all viruses except papillomaviruses. The next most potent agents included cidofovir, ganciclovir, foscarnet, and acyclovir with EC values between 0.1 μM and >10 μM for cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus, and adenovirus.
CONCLUSION
Most of the identified antivirals had in vitro activity against more than one dsDNA virus. Brincidofovir and cidofovir have broad-spectrum activity, and brincidofovir has the lowest EC values. These findings could assist clinical practice and developmental research.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; DNA Viruses; DNA, Viral; Drug Resistance, Viral; Drugs, Investigational; Humans
PubMed: 30677427
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2019.01.008