Publication: A Nationwide Survey of Cytomegalovirus Prevention Strategies in Kidney Transplant Recipients in a Resource-Limited Setting
Issued Date
2019-10-05
Resource Type
ISSN
23288957
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85073553137
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Open Forum Infectious Diseases. Vol.6, No.9 (2019)
Suggested Citation
Jackrapong Bruminhent, Asalaysa Bushyakanist, Surasak Kantachuvesiri, Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul A Nationwide Survey of Cytomegalovirus Prevention Strategies in Kidney Transplant Recipients in a Resource-Limited Setting. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. Vol.6, No.9 (2019). doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz322 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/51367
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
A Nationwide Survey of Cytomegalovirus Prevention Strategies in Kidney Transplant Recipients in a Resource-Limited Setting
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2019 The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. Objective: Strategies to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in resource-limited settings have been under-explored. We investigated CMV prevention strategies utilized among transplant centers in Thailand. Method: A questionnaire on CMV prevention strategies for kidney transplant (KT) recipients was developed using a web-based electronic survey website (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was delivered to 31 transplant centers in Thailand. One infectious disease physician (ID) and 1 nephrologist (NP) from each center were included. Results: There were 43 respondents from 26 of the 31 transplant centers (84%), including 26 (60%) IDs and 17 (40%) NPs. Forty-one 95% (41/43) physicians agreed on the necessity of CMV prevention. Of these, 77% (33/43) physicians implemented prevention strategies for their patients. Interventions included preemptive approaches (48%), prophylaxis (45%), hybrid approaches; surveillance after prophylaxis (3%), and CMV-specific immunity-guided approaches (3%). For CMV-seropositive KT recipients, use of preemptive approaches (84%) exceeded prophylaxis (12%). However, 81% of the former preferred targeted prophylaxis in patients receiving antithymocyte globulin therapy. Sixty-five percent and 93% of physicians started preemptive therapy when plasma CMV DNA loads reached 2000 and 3000 copies/mL (1820 and 2730 IU/mL), respectively. A significantly greater percentage of NPs initiated preemptive therapy at a plasma CMV DNA load of 1820 IU/mL compared with IDs (88% vs 50%; P =. 02). The most common barrier to prevention strategy implementation was financial inaccessibility of oral valganciclovir (67%) and quantitative CMV DNA testing (12%). Conclusions: Most physicians agreed on a need for preemptive approaches, although prophylaxis was targeted in those receiving intense immunosuppression. The financial implication is the main barrier for CMV prevention in Thailand.
