Treatment for First Cytomegalovirus Infection Post-Hematopoietic Cell Transplant in the AURORA Trial: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial Comparing Maribavir With Valganciclovir.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenia may limit the use of valganciclovir treatment for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection following hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). A phase 2 study indicated efficacy of maribavir with fewer treatment-limiting toxicities than valganciclovir. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, patients with first asymptomatic CMV infection post-HCT were stratified and randomized 1:1 to maribavir 400 mg twice daily or valganciclovir (dose-adjusted for renal clearance) for 8 weeks with 12 weeks of follow-up. The primary endpoint was confirmed CMV viremia clearance at week 8 (primary hypothesis of noninferiority margin of 7.0%). The key secondary endpoint was a composite of the primary endpoint with no findings of CMV tissue-invasive disease at week 8 through week 16. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Among patients treated (273 maribavir; 274 valganciclovir), the primary endpoint of noninferiority of maribavir was not met (maribavir, 69.6%; valganciclovir, 77.4%; adjusted difference: -7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.98, -.36; lower limit of 95% CI of treatment difference exceeded -7.0%). At week 16, 52.7% and 48.5% of patients treated (maribavir and valganciclovir, respectively) maintained CMV viremia clearance without tissue-invasive disease (adjusted difference: 4.4%; 95% CI: -3.91, 12.76). With maribavir (vs valganciclovir), fewer patients experienced neutropenia (16.1% and 52.9%) or discontinued due to TEAEs (27.8% and 41.2%). Discontinuations were mostly due to neutropenia (maribavir, 4.0%; valganciclovir, 17.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although noninferiority of maribavir to valganciclovir for the primary endpoint was not achieved based on the prespecified noninferiority margin, maribavir demonstrated comparable CMV viremia clearance during post-treatment follow-up, with fewer discontinuations due to neutropenia. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02927067 [AURORA].

A Randomized Trial of Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Therapy in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Although cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important factor in the pathogenesis of kidney allograft rejection, previous studies have not determined the optimal CMV prevention strategy to avoid indirect effects of the virus. In this randomized trial involving 140 kidney transplant recipients, incidence of acute rejection at 12 months was not lower with valganciclovir prophylaxis (for at least 3 months) compared with preemptive therapy initiated after detection of CMV DNA in whole blood. However, prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of subclinical rejection at 3 months. Although both regimens were effective in preventing CMV disease, the incidence of CMV DNAemia (including episodes with higher viral loads) was significantly higher with preemptive therapy. Further research with long-term follow-up is warranted to better compare the two approaches. BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in kidney transplant recipients, primarily in reducing indirect CMV effects, has not been defined. METHODS: This open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial of valganciclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy included kidney transplant recipients recruited between June 2013 and May 2018. After excluding CMV-seronegative recipients with transplants from seronegative donors, we randomized 140 participants 1:1 to receive valganciclovir prophylaxis (900 mg, daily for 3 or 6 months for CMV-seronegative recipients who received a kidney from a CMV-seropositive donor) or preemptive therapy (valganciclovir, 900 mg, twice daily) that was initiated after detection of CMV DNA in whole blood (≥1000 IU/ml) and stopped after two consecutive negative tests (preemptive therapy patients received weekly CMV PCR tests for 4 months). The primary outcome was the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection at 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included subclinical rejection, CMV disease and DNAemia, and neutropenia. RESULTS: The incidence of acute rejection was lower with valganciclovir prophylaxis than with preemptive therapy (13%, 9/70 versus 23%, 16/70), but the difference was not statistically significant. Subclinical rejection at 3 months was lower in the prophylaxis group (13% versus 29%, P = 0.027). Both regimens prevented CMV disease (in 4% of patients in both groups). Compared with prophylaxis, preemptive therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of CMV DNAemia (44% versus 75%, P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of patients experiencing episodes with higher viral load (≥2000 IU/ml), but significantly lower valganciclovir exposure and neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Among kidney transplant recipients, the use of valganciclovir prophylaxis did not result in a significantly lower incidence of acute rejection compared with the use of preemptive therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Optimizing Valganciclovir Efficacy in Renal Transplantation (OVERT Study), ACTRN12613000554763 .

Optimization of Ganciclovir use in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients - the role of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an opportunistic infectious complication that can occur after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The mainstay of treatment and prevention of this infection is ganciclovir and its ester prodrug valganciclovir. There is conflicting evidence on the clinical utility of routine ganciclovir therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) as a means to optimize treatment.Areas covered: This review aims to describe the current knowledge of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of ganciclovir and valganciclovir, and to explore the evidence and challenges surrounding ganciclovir TDM within the allogeneic HCT cohort.Expert opinion: Ganciclovir TDM is important to optimize efficacy in selected patient groups where there are variable pharmacokinetic factors or inadequate response to treatment. However, defined pharmacokinetic exposures which correlate with treatment efficacy and toxicity remain elusive. Prospective clinical studies in specific patient groups are required to clarify this issue. Alternative TDM targets such as the intracellular ganciclovir triphosphate should be explored as they may prove to have better correlation with clinical outcomes and adverse effects. With recent advances in CMV immune monitoring, novel approaches integrating TDM with specific CMV immune phenotyping in a predictive model will be advantageous in optimizing ganciclovir dosing by combining TDM with a risk stratification approach.

Treating HIV-associated cytomegalovirus retinitis with oral valganciclovir and intra-ocular ganciclovir by primary HIV clinicians in southern Myanmar: a retrospective analysis of routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus retinitis (CMVR) is an opportunistic infection in HIV-infected people. Intraocular or intravenous ganciclovir was gold standard for treatment; however, oral valganciclovir replaced this in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) frequently use intraocular injection of ganciclovir (IOG) alone because of cost. METHODS: Retrospective review of all HIV-positive patients with CMVR from February 2013 to April 2017 at a Médecins Sans Frontièrs HIV clinic in Myanmar. Treatment was classified as local (IOG) or systemic (valganciclovir, or valganciclovir and IOG). The primary outcome was change in visual acuity (VA) post-treatment. Mortality was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. Baseline VA was available for 103 (97%) patient eyes. Active CMVR was present in 72 (68%) eyes. Post-treatment, seven (13%) patients had improvement in VA, 30 (57%) had no change, and three (6%) deteriorated. Among patients receiving systemic therapy, four (12.5%) died, compared with five (24%) receiving local therapy (p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our results from the first introduction of valganciclovir for CMVR in LMIC show encouraging effectiveness and safety in patients with advanced HIV. We urge HIV programmes to include valganciclovir as an essential medicine, and to include CMVR screening and treatment in the package of advanced HIV care.

Valganciclovir as Add-on to Standard Therapy in Glioblastoma Patients.

PURPOSE: Several groups have reported a prevalence of human cytomegalovirus (CMV) in glioblastoma close to 100%. Previously, we reported that treatment with the antiviral drug valganciclovir as an add-on to standard therapy significantly prolonged survival in 50 patients with glioblastoma. Here, we present an updated retrospective analysis that includes an additional 52 patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From December 2006 to November 2019, 102 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma received valganciclovir as an add-on to standard therapy. No additional toxicity was observed. Contemporary controls were 231 patients with glioblastoma who received similar baseline therapy. RESULTS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma receiving valganciclovir had longer median overall survival (OS 24.1 vs. 13.3 months, P < 0.0001) and a 2-year survival rate (49.8% vs. 17.3%) than controls. Median time-to-tumor progression was also longer than in controls; 9.9 (0.7-67.5 months) versus 7.3 (1.2-49 months), P = 0.0003. Valganciclovir improved survival in patients with radical or partial resection and an unmethylated or methylated MGMT promoter gene. CONCLUSIONS: Valganciclovir prolonged median OS of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (with methylated or unmethylated MGMT promoter gene) and was safe to use.

Impact of the patient's body weight on the efficacy and adverse events of valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus reactivation after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

While the dose of ganciclovir (GCV) is decided base on patients' body weight (BW), that of valganciclovir (VGCV) is fixed as 900 or 1800 mg/d regardless of the patient's BW in preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We analyzed the impact of the patient's BW on the effectiveness and adverse events (AEs) of VGCV. From March 2004 to February 2017, 27 patients received VGCV as a first-line treatment for CMV reactivation. As a historical control group, we extracted 17 patients who started to receive GCV at a similar timing. We used the following definitions of outcomes: speed of reduction of CMV antigenemia (CMV-AG) as a measure of effectiveness, ratios of baseline and minimum value for white blood cell (WBC) and platelet counts, and ratio of baseline and maximum values for serum creatinine (sCr) as measures of AEs. As a result, there was no significant correlation between average daily dose of VGCV with or without adjusting for the patient's BW and speed of reduction of CMV-AG. On the other hand, the decreases in WBC and platelets and the increase in sCr were significantly correlated with the cumulative dose of VGCV. However, the absolute values of the correlation coefficients did not increase when we analyzed the correlations between the BW-adjusted cumulative dose of VGCV and factors associated with adverse events. There were no significant differences in efficacies or AE parameters between the GCV and VGCV groups. In conclusion, the patient's BW did not significantly affect the effectiveness or adverse events of VGCV.

Maribavir for Preemptive Treatment of Cytomegalovirus Reactivation.

BACKGROUND: Maribavir is a benzimidazole riboside with activity against cytomegalovirus (CMV). The safety and efficacy of maribavir for preemptive treatment of CMV infection in transplant recipients is not known. METHODS: In a phase 2, open-label, maribavir dose-blinded trial, recipients of hematopoietic-cell or solid-organ transplants (≥18 years of age, with CMV reactivation [1000 to 100,000 DNA copies per milliliter]) were randomly assigned to receive maribavir at a dose of 400, 800, or 1200 mg twice daily or the standard dose of valganciclovir for no more than 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with a response to treatment, defined as confirmed undetectable CMV DNA in plasma, within 3 weeks and 6 weeks after the start of treatment. The primary safety end point was the incidence of adverse events that occurred or worsened during treatment. RESULTS: Of the 161 patients who underwent randomization, 159 received treatment, and 156 had postbaseline data available - 117 in the maribavir group and 39 in the valganciclovir group. The percentage of patients with postbaseline data available who had a response to treatment within 3 weeks was 62% among those who received maribavir and 56% among those who received valganciclovir. Within 6 weeks, 79% and 67% of patients, respectively, had a response (risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.51). The percentages of patients with a response to treatment were similar among the maribavir dose groups. Two patients who had a response to treatment had a recurrence of CMV infection within 6 weeks after starting maribavir at a dose of 800 mg twice daily; T409M resistance mutations in CMV UL97 protein kinase developed in both patients. The incidence of serious adverse events that occurred or worsened during treatment was higher in the maribavir group than in the valganciclovir group (52 of 119 patients [44%] vs. 13 of 40 [32%]). A greater percentage of patients in the maribavir group discontinued the trial medication because of an adverse event (27 of 119 [23%] vs. 5 of 40 [12%]). A higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was reported with maribavir, and a higher incidence of neutropenia was reported with valganciclovir. CONCLUSIONS: Maribavir at a dose of at least 400 mg twice daily had efficacy similar to that of valganciclovir for clearing CMV viremia among recipients of hematopoietic-cell or solid-organ transplants. A higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events - notably dysgeusia - and a lower incidence of neutropenia were found in the maribavir group. (Funded by ViroPharma/Shire Development; EudraCT number, 2010-024247-32.).