Why the study?
Letermovir is approved for CMV prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but its efficacy and safety in thoracic organ transplant recipients remain underexplored.
Does letermovir prophylaxis reduce breakthrough CMV infection compared to valganciclovir in adult thoracic organ transplant recipients?
Does letermovir prophylaxis reduce breakthrough CMV infection compared to valganciclovir in adult thoracic organ transplant recipients?
Letermovir prophylaxis demonstrates comparable efficacy to valganciclovir for preventing CMV infection in thoracic organ transplant recipients, with a favorable safety profile particularly regarding leukopenia.
Supports letermovir as alternative prophylaxis; extends meta-analytic evidence to thoracic organ recipients.
OBJECTIVE: Letermovir (LTV) is a novel antiviral agent approved for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high risk allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. However, its efficacy and safety in thoracic organ transplant (TOT) recipients remain underexplored. This study systematically evaluates the efficacy and safety of LTV prophylaxis for CMV infection in TOT recipients. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted up to February 2025. Studies assessing LTV prophylaxis in adult TOT were included. We performed a single-arm meta-analysis using Open Meta Analyst software and a double-arm meta-analysis with Review Manager. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as event rates using the fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 380 patients were included. The single-arm meta-analysis showed that LTV prophylaxis was associated with a 3.7% (95% CI: 0.006, 0.069) breakthrough CMV infection rate. The incidence of low-level CMV viremia was 15.8% (95% CI: 0.070, 0.245). The percentage of patients who discontinued LTV due to adverse effects was only 1.7% (95% CI: -0.002, 0.035), while 79.9% (95% CI: 0.610, 0.988) experienced improvement in leukopenia. The double-arm meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in breakthrough CMV infection rates between LTV and valganciclovir (VGC) (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.09, 1.68; P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: LTV prophylaxis demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in reducing breakthrough CMV infection, low-level viremia, and adverse events in TOT recipients. Its favorable safety profile, particularly in mitigating leukopenia, highlights its potential as an effective alternative to VGC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aldalati et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: