Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis following lung transplantation: A single-center review

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of infection following solid organ transplant and valganciclovir prophylaxis is the standard of care. However, valganciclovir-associated myelosuppression limits its tolerability and can require dose reduction in immunosuppression, particularly cell cycle i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJHLT open Vol. 6; p. 100149
Main Authors Mezochow, Alyssa K., He, Kevin D., Whitaker, Kathryn, Blumberg, Emily, Crespo, Maria M., Courtwright, Andrew
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Inc 01.11.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of infection following solid organ transplant and valganciclovir prophylaxis is the standard of care. However, valganciclovir-associated myelosuppression limits its tolerability and can require dose reduction in immunosuppression, particularly cell cycle inhibitors, or changes in antimicrobial prophylaxis. Letermovir, a viral terminase inhibitor, is approved by the FDA for use as CMV prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients; data on its use in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) are limited. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of LTRs prescribed letermovir for prophylaxis between January 1, 2018 and September 1, 2023. Over the study period, 88 LTRs were prescribed letermovir with most (93%) switching due to myelosuppression while on valganciclovir. Of those prescribed letermovir, 67 (76%) actually started letermovir, with the primary barrier being insufficient insurance coverage or high copay cost. Among LTRs who started letermovir due to myelosuppression, 90% had improvement in their leukopenia or neutropenia, with a significant increase in white blood cell count 1 month after switching therapy (p < 0.0001). Additionally, 46% of those who were not receiving a cell cycle inhibitor previously were able to restart this after switching to letermovir. CMV was detected in 14 LTRs following letermovir switch, with 2 discontinuing letermovir due to breakthrough CMV. Our findings support the use of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in LTRs with possible benefits over valganciclovir, although a direct comparison is needed.
ISSN:2950-1334
2950-1334
DOI:10.1016/j.jhlto.2024.100149