4.6 Article

Evaluation of 10 years of parainfluenza virus, human metapneumovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus infections in lung transplant recipients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages 3529-3537

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.16073

Keywords

antibiotic; antiviral; clinical research; practice; infection and infectious agents - viral; infectious disease; lung (allograft) function; dysfunction; lung transplantation; pulmonology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Respiratory tract infection with pneumoviruses (PVs) and paramyxoviruses (PMVs) are increasingly associated with chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). Ribavirin may be a treatment option but its effectiveness is unclear, especially with respect to infection severity. We retrospectively analyzed 10 years of PV/PMV infections in LTRs. The main end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 3 and 6 months postinfection, expressed as a percentage of pre-infection FEV(1)and incidence of new or progressed CLAD 6 months postinfection. A total of 139 infections were included: 88 severe infections (63%) (defined as >10% FEV(1)loss at infection) and 51 mild infections (37%) (<= 10% FEV(1)loss). Overall postinfection CLAD incidence was 20%. Associations were estimated on postinfection FEV(1)for ribavirin vs no ribavirin (+13.2% [95% CI: 7.79; 18.67]) and severe vs mild infection (-11.1% [95% CI: -14.76; -7.37]). Factors associated with CLAD incidence at 6 months were ribavirin treatment (odds ratio (OR [95% CI]) 0.24 [0.10; 0.59]), severe infection (OR [95% CI] 4.63 [1.66; 12.88]), and mycophenolate mofetil use (OR [95% CI] 0.38 [0.14; 0.97]). These data provide valuable information about the outcomes of lung transplant recipients with these infections and suggests possible associations of ribavirin use and infection severity with long-term outcomes. Well-designed prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available