Skip to content

Effectiveness of an Immune-guided Cytomegalovirus Infection Preventive Strategy Compared to a Universal Prophylactic Strategy in Renal Transplant Patients

Effectiveness of an Immune-guided Cytomegalovirus Infection Preventive Strategy Compared to a Universal Prophylactic Strategy in Renal Transplant Patients

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05708508
Acronym
CYTOPREV
Enrollment
144
Registered
2023-02-01
Start date
2024-03-28
Completion date
2027-04-01
Last updated
2026-02-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Kidney Transplant Infection

Brief summary

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) establishes a chronic infection in 60% of the general population. In renal transplant recipients, it is responsible for morbidities occurring mainly in the first 6 months after transplantation. These include viral reactivations linked to immunosuppressive treatment inhibiting the anti-CMV T lymphocyte response. CMV infection, a sign of uncontrolled viral replication, is defined by the detection of viral DNA in the peripheral blood (DNAemia). CMV disease is defined as the association of an infection and symptoms attributable to the virus. In transplant recipients carrying the virus before transplantation (positive serology: CMV+), two infection prevention strategies are recommended: either close monitoring of DNAemia with antiviral treatment in the event of positive detection (pre-emptive strategy), or antiviral treatment for the first 3 months following the transplant (prophylactic strategy). Both strategies result in the occurrence of CMV infection in 15 to 20% of patients within the first 6 months, with the majority of events occurring between 3 and 6 months. Numerous studies show that the evaluation of the anti-CMV T lymphocyte response, either before (D0) or early after transplantation (D15), or when antiviral prophylaxis is stopped, allows the identification of patients at risk of CMV infection. No study has yet demonstrated the contribution of such an evaluation in a preventive strategy.

Interventions

DRUGROVALCYTE

"Immuno-guided strategy" arm

Sponsors

University Hospital, Rouen
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Renal transplant patient for 1 to 12 days * CMV seropositivity on the day of transplantation: IgG threshold =6 AU/mL CMIA CMV IgG, Architect i4000 (Abbott)) (Serology performed on D0, before the transplant) * Non-depleting inducing immunosuppressive treatment (Basiliximab) (implementation before the transplant) * Affiliation to a social security scheme * Patient having read and understood the information letter and signed the consent form

Exclusion criteria

* Active CMV infection (detectable CMV DNAemia - peripheral CMV DNAemia ≥ 305 IU/mL) * Patient with hypersensitivity to valganciclovir, ganciclovir, aciclovir or valaciclovir or to any of the excipients * Lympho-depleting inducing immunosuppressive treatment (antithymoglobulins) * Neutropenia (neutrophils \< 500/mm3) or thrombocytopenia (platelets \< 25,000/mm3) or anemia (hemoglobin \< 8G/L) identified on routine care samples taken on the day of inclusion

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Demonstrate, in CMV+ transplant patients, the efficacy of an immuno-guided preventive strategy compared to the universal prophylactic strategy, in terms of CMV infection in the 6 months following kidney transplantation.6 monthsProportion of patients with CMV infection within 6 months of transplantation.

Countries

France

Contacts

CONTACTDominique Bertrand
dominique.bertrand@chu-rouen.fr0232885452

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 18, 2026