4.7 Article

Sirolimus-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis protects against cytomegalovirus reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a cohort analysis

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 110, Issue 2, Pages 490-500

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2007-01-069294

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL070149, HL070149] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sirolimus-based immunosuppressive regimens in organ transplantation have been associated with a lower than expected incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. Whether sirolimus has a similar effect on CMV reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is not known. We evaluated 606 patients who underwent HSCT between April 2000 and June 2004 to identify risk factors for CMV reactivation 100 days after transplantation. The cohort included 252 patients who received sirolimus-tacrolimus for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis; the rest received non-sirolimus-based regimens. An initial positive CMV DNA hybrid capture assay was observed in 225 patients (37.1%) at a median 39 days after HSCT for an incidence rate of 0.50 cases/100 patient-days (95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.44-0.57). Multivariable Cox modeling adjusting for CMV donor-recipient serostatus pairs, incident acute GVHD, as well as other important covariates, confirmed a significant reduction in CMV reactivation associated with sirolimus-tacrolimus-based GVHD prophylaxis, with an adjusted HR of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.27-0-78; P =.004). The adjusted HR was 0.22 (95% Cl, 0.09-0.55; P =.001) when persistent CMV viremia was modeled. Tacrolimus use without sirolimus was not significantly protective in either model (adjusted HR, 0.66; P =.14 and P =.35, respectively). The protective effect of sirolimus-containing GVHD prophylaxis regimens on CMV reactivation should be confirmed in randomized trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available