LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

1600. An Optimal Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Treatment in Lung Transplant Recipients: Oral Ribavirin, Inhaled Ribavirin, or Conservative Approach

Photo from wikipedia

Abstract Background Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common community acquired infection in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). The mortality in RSV-infected LTRs has been reported as 10–20% despite antiviral therapy;… Click to show full abstract

Abstract Background Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common community acquired infection in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). The mortality in RSV-infected LTRs has been reported as 10–20% despite antiviral therapy; however, there is no consensus regarding treatment given limited data. Methods A retrospective study of all LTRs at Duke University during January 2013 and May 2017 with a positive RSV PCR respiratory specimen was performed. Baseline characteristics, sites of infection, antiviral therapy, side effects, outcomes including all-cause 1-year mortality post RSV infection, and 90-day readmission rates were analyzed. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust the effect of ribavirin (RBV) on mortality. Results One hundred fourteen RSV-infected LTRs were identified: 70 received oral RBV, 32 inhaled RBV and 12 supportive care only. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 3 groups except site of infection and oxygen requirement at diagnosis (see table). Of 32 patients treated with inhaled RBV, 19 had a creatinine clearance <40 mL/minute and 8 were unable to take oral drugs. Unadjusted all-cause 1-year mortality was highest in the supportive care group [33.3% vs. 7.1% (oral RBV) vs. 25% (inhaled RBV), P = 0.01]. There were no significant differences in readmission rates among the 3 groups. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death and oral RBV use was 0.27 ([0.07,1.1], P = 0.07). The adjusted HR for death and inhaled RBV use was 0.90 ([0.22, 3.68], P = 0.88). RBV was stopped prematurely in only 1 patient in the oral group due to nausea and vomiting. Conclusion Oral and inhaled RBV appear to be well tolerated in LTRs. Our data support the use of oral RBV as a safe alternative to inhaled RBV in LTRs. Additional studies are required to determine whether LTRs with asymptomatic RSV infection would benefit from RBV therapy. Supportive Care N = 12 (%) Oral RBV N = 70 (%) Inhaled RBV N = 32 (%) P-value Site of infection 0.0004 Upper respiratory tract 1 (8.3) 32 (45.7) 11 (34.4) Lower respiratory tract 3 (25) 24 (34.3) 18 (56.3) Asymptomatic 8 (66.7) 14 (20) 3 (9.4) Oxygen requirement at diagnosis 0.003 None 8 (66.7) 61 (87.1) 18 (56.3) 1–2 L/minute 2 (16.7) 6 (8.6) 4 (12.5) >2 L/minute 2 (16.7) 3 (4.3) 10 (31.3) Disclosures R. Miller, scynexis: Investigator, Research support.

Keywords: rbv; oral rbv; infection; rsv; respiratory; inhaled rbv

Journal Title: Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Year Published: 2018

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.