This page contains exclusive content for the member of the following sections: TTS, TID, IHCTAS. Log in to view.
2.2 - Val-GCV in liver transplants – Pro And Cons
Presenter: Emily and Camille, Blumberg and Kotton, Philadelphia, United States Authors: Emily Blumberg, Philadelphia, PA, USA and Camille N. Kotton, Boston, MA, USA
Val-GCV in liver transplants – Pro And Cons
Emily Blumberg, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Camille N. Kotton, Boston, MA, USA
Prevention of CMV improves outcomes after liver transplant. Both pre-emptive therapy and prophylaxis are established modalities of prevention. In the initial PV16000 study comparing valganciclovir with oral ganciclovir (Paya et al, AJT 2004), liver transplant patients on valganciclovir had higher rates of tissue invasive disease, and the US FDA did not approve valganciclovir for use in this population. It was approved for use in other regions of the world, including the EU and Canada. In a survey of transplant clinicians, the majority use valganciclovir for prophylaxis. While some studies show inferior outcomes with valganciclovir, others show no inferiority. We will review recent data regarding the use of valganciclovir in liver transplant recipients.
By viewing the material on this site you understand and
The opinions and statements expressed on this site reflect the
views of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections.
The hosting of material on The Transplantation Society site does
not signify endorsement of this material by The Transplantation Society
and/or its Sections.
The material is solely for educational purposes for qualified
health care professionals.
The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections are not liable for
any decision made or action taken based on the information contained in
the material on this site.
The information cannot be used as a substitute for professional
The information does not represent a standard of care.
No physician-patient relationship is being established.