1749. A Nationwide Survey of Cytomegalovirus Prevention Strategies in Kidney Transplant Recipients in a Resource-Limited Setting

Abstract Background Cytomegalovirus (CMV) causes morbidity in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Strategies to prevent this infection in resource-limited settings have been unreliably implemented and under-explored. We investigated CMV prevention strategies utilized among transplant centers in Thailand. Methods A questionnaire on CMV prevention strategies for KT recipients was developed using a web-based electronic survey website (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was delivered to 31 transplant centers in Thailand. One infectious disease physician (ID) and one nephrologist (NP) from each center were included. Results There were 43 respondents from 26 (84%) transplant centers including 26 (60%) IDs and 17 (40%) NPs. The majority worked in a public hospital setting (63%) and had encountered KT recipients for at least 2 years (74%). Forty-one (98%) physicians agreed on the necessity of CMV prevention. Of these, 34 (81%) physicians implemented prevention strategies for their patients. Interventions included preemptive approaches (47%), prophylaxis (44%), hybrid approaches (3%); surveillance after prophylaxis (3%), and CMV-specific immunity-guided approaches (3%). For CMV-seropositive KT recipients, use of preemption (84%) exceeded prophylaxis (12%). However, 81% of the former preferred targeted prophylaxis in patients receiving anti-thymocyte globulin therapy. Sixty-five and 93% of physicians started preemptive therapy when plasma CMV DNA loads reached 2,000 and 3,000 copies/mL (1,820 and 2,730 IU/mL), respectively. A significantly greater percentage of NPs initiated preemptive therapy at a plasma CMV level of 1,820 IU/mL compared with IDs (88% vs. 50%, [P = 0.02]). The most common barrier to prevention strategy implementation was financial inaccessibility of oral valganciclovir (67%) and quantitative CMV DNA testing (12%). The majority (81%) felt that a guideline would allow physicians to implement CMV prevention strategies for their patients. Conclusion Most physicians agreed on a need for preemptive approaches, although prophylaxis was targeted in those receiving intense immunosuppression. Guidelines and financial accessibility could improve CMV prevention strategy implementation in Thai KT recipients. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.