Incidence of CMV disease
Over the 48 weeks following discontinuation of maintenance therapy, 2 of the 48 patients developed recurrent CMV disease. The cumulative probability of any CMV disease site was 4.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–14.1], and the cumulative probability of recurrent CMV retinitis was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.4–11.3).
One patient had a recurrence of CMV retinitis (confirmed by funduscopy and angiography) 11 weeks after discontinuing intravenous ganciclovir. The CD4 cell counts were 302 and 352 × 106 cells/l, respectively and the plasma HIV RNA values were 4.1 and 4.3 log10 copies/ml, respectively, at baseline and at the time of CMV retinitis relapse.
The second patient developed CMV-related peripheral neuropathy 5 weeks after withdrawal of CMV maintenance therapy. Clinical manifestations included paraesthesias, pain and gait disorders. From baseline to the onset of the neuropathy, the plasma HIV RNA levels remained stable at 2.3 log10 copies/ml and the CD4 cell counts were 140 and 106 × 106 cells/l, respectively. Antiretroviral therapy in this patient consisted of stavudine, lamivudine and indinavir, for 10 months. No CMV inclusions were detected in neuromuscular biopsy specimens. Because of the clinical severity, stavudine was discontinued and ganciclovir was resumed; the patient gradually improved after a few weeks.
CMV blood culture, pp65 antigenaemia and CMV DNA assays were negative in both patients at CMV disease recurrence.
Course of HIV infection
The median CD4 cell count increased significantly during follow-up, from 239 × 106 cells/l at baseline to 347 × 106 cells/l at week 48 (P < 10−4) (Table 3).
The median plasma HIV RNA load did not change significantly from baseline (median 2.3 log10 copies/ml; range, 2.1–4.7) to week 48 (2.3 log10 copies/ml; range, 2.1–4.5) (P = 0.11). Three-quarters of patients had HIV RNA values below 500 copies/ml at week 48.
None of the 48 patients had to resume secondary CMV prophylaxis, as defined in the protocol, because of a fall in the CD4 cell count or an increase in plasma HIV RNA. None of the 46 patients who remained free of CMV disease experienced any major HIV-related clinical event.
Two patients died during follow-up, one from acute leukaemia and one from lymphoma.
CMV-specific immune responses
CMV-specific responses, measured in the LPA, showed CD4 T cell reactivity in 12 of the 26 patients (46%) tested at baseline, 12 of the 22 patients (55%) tested at week 24, and 14 of the 22 patients (64%) tested at week 48 (Fig. 1) (P = 0.29). Of the 24 patients tested who did not develop recurrent CMV disease, five were never CMV LPA-positive during the 48 weeks of follow-up; 8 of the 13 patients with an initially negative response became positive during follow-up, while 1 of the 11 patients with an initially positive response became repeatedly negative. A significant T cell production of interferon-γ after stimulation with CMV antigens (median 247 pg/ml; range, 30–687) was detected in 44% (11/25) of patients at week 48. Two of the five LPA-negative patients had significant T cell interferon-γ production. Overall, only 3 of the 24 patients had no anti-CMV T cell reactivity at any time during the 48 weeks of follow-up; 16 of the 22 listed patients (73%) had anti-CMV T cell reactivity at the end of study.
The patient in whom CMV retinitis relapsed at week 11 had strong specific T cell proliferation to CMV antigens at enrolment (6266 c.p.m.; stimulation index 27) and had lost this reactivity at the time of the clinical CMV relapse (96 c.p.m.; stimulation index 1). The patient who developed CMV neuropathy at week 6 had no proliferative response to CMV at baseline.
Similar percentages of lymphocyte reactivity to tuberculin were observed, with tuberculin-specific proliferative response in 37, 46 and 65% of patients at baseline, week 24 and week 48, respectively.
Among the 61 eyes evaluated at baseline in these 48 patients, visual acuity was impaired in 23/61 eyes, with a score of less than 20/32 on the Snellen chart. Over the 48-week follow-up period, visual acuity remained stable in 38 of the 57 assessable eyes (46 patients), deteriorated by more than one line on the Snellen chart in 14 eyes and improved in five eyes.
At enrolment, immune recovery vitreitis was present in 24/59 assessable eyes (41%) in 47 patients. At week 48, it remained stable in eight eyes, had deteriorated in four and improved in six. Immune recovery vitreitis appeared in nine eyes during follow-up. The prevalence of cystoid macular oedema assessed on retinal fluoroscein angiography at week 48 was 67% (29/43) (95% CI, 51–81). No association was found between the presence of immune recovery vitreitis and LPA positivity: 11 of the 14 patients with a sustained anti-CMV Th1 response had immune recovery vitreitis compared with three of the five patients with a consistently negative anti-CMV Th1 response (P = 0.57).
In this prospective study designed to investigate the safety of discontinuation of therapy for CMV, the overall recurrence rate of CMV disease was 4.2% and that of CMV retinitis 2.2% during a 48-week period after discontinuation of CMV maintenance therapy in 48 patients with CD4 cell counts > 75 × 106 cells/l while on HAART.
Two patients developed recurrent CMV disease. In one patient, funduscopy showed a minimal progression of peripheral retinitis 11 weeks after stopping maintenance therapy. The episode responded favourably to anti-CMV therapy.
The second patient developed peripheral neuropathy, which the expert committee considered to be potentially related to CMV despite the absence of CMV inclusions and antigens in cerebrospinal fluid and neuromuscular biopsy specimens. This patient was taking a stavudine-containing HAART regimen, which is known to induce peripheral neuropathy, and the patient had had a prior episode of neuropathy while on this drug. However, the sudden onset of paraesthesia, the presence of acute axonal lesions on neuromuscular biopsy and the rapid recovery on specific therapy were considered to favour a diagnosis of CMV-related neuropathy.
Whereas a minimal CD4 cell count of 75 × 106 cells/l was required to enter the study, the median count at baseline, i.e. when maintenance therapy was discontinued, was 239 × 106 cells/l (range, 83–899). The discrepancy might be explained by the fact that at the time of the enrolment in the study, between May 1997 and July 1998, most patients with a history of CMV retinitis had received protease inhibitors and had been on a HAART regimen for a median of 18 months, with a substantial increase in the CD4 cell count. The study population is, therefore, fairly representative of candidates for discontinuation of secondary CMV prophylaxis during HAART. However, some of the study investigators may have been reluctant to discontinue CMV maintenance therapy in patients with CD4 cell counts below 150 × 106 cells/l.
One limitation of our study is that it was not comparative or randomized. However, to demonstrate equivalence between discontinuing and pursuing maintenance therapy, we would have had to include a much larger number of patients, given the small number of clinical events on HAART. Furthermore, the frequent adverse effects of CMV maintenance therapy would probably have made it difficult to maintain secondary CMV prophylaxis in the control group over such a long follow-up period. Such a study would be even more difficult to set up at present.
The epidemiology of clinical CMV infection and the course of CMV disease were extensively studied in the pre-HAART era. CMV retinitis usually occurs when the CD4 cell count falls to < 50 × 106 cells/l [1,2,20]. For patients with CD4 cell counts < 100 × 106 cells/l, the reported probability of CMV disease at 2 years was 21%, compared with 1% among patients with higher counts . In randomized studies, the median time to retinitis progression ranged from 3 to 4 months in the maintenance arm and 3 to 6 weeks in the absence of maintenance therapy [4–7,21]. Longer remission of CMV retinitis has been observed with intravitreal ganciclovir implants . However, this approach fails to prevent progression to the other eye or to other organs. Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that, in the absence of immune restoration, the recurrence rate of CMV retinitis after discontinuation of secondary prophylaxis would have been nearly 100% after 3 months. The fact that we observed only two cases of recurrent CMV disease in these 48 patients over 48 weeks of follow-up is clearly related to the impact of the immune restoration associated with HAART in this setting.
Several observational cohort studies have shown a sharp fall in the incidence of CMV infection since the introduction of HAART [23–24]. In the PREDIVIR study , the incidence of CMV disease in patients with CD4 lymphocyte counts < 100 × 106 cells/l fell from 20 to only 3.5 per patient-year.
The reduced incidence of most major opportunistic infections is thought to be essentially a consequence of the immune restoration facilitated by the sustained inhibition of viral replication, as reflected by the restoration of CMV-specific CD4 T cell responses 3–6 months after initiation of efficient antiretroviral therapy [17–19].
Our study was the first to investigate prospectively the clinical consequences of discontinuing secondary CMV prophylaxis in parallel with measurements of CMV-specific helper immune response. A median of 18 months following HAART initiation, 46% of the 26 patients tested had anti-CMV T cell proliferative capacity; this proportion tended to increase during follow-up, as 64% of tested patients had positive proliferative responses after 48 weeks.
The production of interferon-γ by CMV-specific T cells assesses the Th1 profile of this reactivity, as previously shown . Such Th1 response should help the restoration of a potent effector response against CMV mediated by parallel cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Studies performed in parallel confirmed that high frequencies of CD8 cells specific for CMV were detectable in these patients (G. Carcelain et al., personal communication).
Interestingly, the two CMV-related clinical events occurred in patients who had no immune reactivity against CMV antigens at onset. Because of the small number of clinical events, we cannot determine whether immunological non-reactivity to CMV antigens is predictive of CMV disease progression.
Our results suggest that HAART, by quantitatively and qualitatively restoring immune status [median CD4 cells 14 × 106 cells/l at the time of CMV retinitis and 239 × 106 cells/l at the discontinuation of maintenance therapy (with a minimal value of 83 × 106 cells/l)] confers clinical protection from recurrent CMV disease.
Overall, the impact of HAART on plasma HIV RNA load remained stable over the 48 weeks of follow-up, suggesting that HAART rarely fails in highly motivated patients, with excellent initial control of HIV replication.
Immune recovery vitreitis was first described in patients with inactive CMV retinitis who had an increase in the CD4 cell count in response to HAART [25,26]. As reported by other authors, we found a high frequency of immune recovery vitreitis (41%) in these patients. Interestingly, while Karavellas et al. reported a median time of 43 weeks after starting HAART to the onset of immune recovery vitreitis [range 35–47 weeks], seven of our patients who were free of immune recovery vitreitis at enrolment developed it after 28–90 weeks of HAART. This suggests that patients with a history of CMV retinitis should receive regular and prolonged ophthalmological monitoring after starting HAART.
Despite close monitoring throughout follow-up, including measurement of highly sensitive CMV markers such as quantitative pp65 antigenaemia every month [27,28] and CMV DNA screening by PCR in blood leukocytes every 3 months, both of which are predictors of CMV disease progression , we found no signs of CMV reactivation in any of the patients. The absence of CMV replication in leukocytes at baseline was probably a result of the specific maintenance therapy, but thereafter it was probably a consequence of the immune restoration conferred by HAART; this has been supported by a patient in whom immune restoration was able to control persistent CMV replication in the absence of specific CMV therapy .
The discontinuation of prophylaxis against opportunistic infections in HIV-infected patients showing an improvement in immune status during HAART has mainly been studied for primary Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia [31–33] and, more recently, for primary Mycobacterium avium complex disease  Regarding the issue of discontinuing CMV maintenance therapy, our data are in keeping with previous series of 7–15 patients with median CD4 cell counts ranging from 180 to 300 × 106 cells/l in which no progression of CMV retinitis occurred over follow-up periods ranging from 6 to 72 months [35–39] The possibility of withdrawing CMV maintenance therapy in patients with a history of extraretinal CMV disease has not been examined.
In conclusion, this study shows that it is safe to stop maintenance therapy for CMV retinitis in patients who respond to HAART with an increase in the CD4 cell count to at least 75 × 106 cells/l. These results should be applicable to routine practice. Withdrawal of CMV maintenance therapy in this setting should lead to a major improvement in these patients’ quality of life, together with a significant cost saving. Discontinuation of maintenance therapy for CMV retinitis in patients with immune restoration while taking HAART has recently been incorporated into the USPHS/IDSA guidelines for the Prevention of Opportunistic Infections in the United States  and into French guidelines on the management of HIV-infected patients .
We would like to thank the study participants, the investigators of RESTIMOP and David Young for help in manuscript preparation.
1. Gallant JE, Moore RD, Richman D. et al. Incidence and natural history of cytomegalovirus disease in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease treated with zidovudine
. J Infect Dis 1992, 166: 1223 –1227.
2. Peters BS, Beck EJ, Anderson S. et al. Cytomegalovirus infection in AIDS patients.
:Patterns of disease, response to therapy and trends in survival.
J Infect Dis 1991, 23: 129 –137.
3. Jabs DA, Green WR, Fax R. et al. Ocular manifestation of acquired immune deficiency syndrome
. Ophthalmology 1989, 96: 1092 –1109.
4. Spector SA, Weingeist T, Pollard R. et al. AIDS Clinical Trials Group and Cytomegalovirus Cooperative Study Group: a randomized, controlled study of intravenous ganciclovir therapy for cytomegalovirus peripheral retinitis in patients with AIDS
. J Infect Dis 1993, 168: 557 –563.
5. Palestine AG, Polis MA, de Smet MD. et al. A randomized, controlled trial of foscarnet in the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS
. Ann Intern Med 1991, 115: 665 –673.
6. Jacobson MA, O'Donnell JJ, Brodie HR. et al. Randomized prospective trial of ganciclovir maintenance therapy for cytomegalovirus retinitis
. Med Virol 1988, 25: 339 –349.
7. Studies of Ocular Complications of AIDS Research Group in collaboration with the AIDS Clinical Trial Group. Mortality in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome treated with either foscarnet or ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus retinitis.
N Engl J Med 1992, 326: 213 –220.
8. Drew WL, Ives D, Lalezari JP. et al. Oral ganciclovir as maintenance treatment for cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS
. N Engl J Med 1995, 333: 615 –620.
9. Pallela FJ, Delaney KM, Moorman AC. et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection
. N Engl J Med 1998, 338: 853 –860.
10. Salmon D, Mazeron MC, Chaput S. et al. Plasma CMV DNA, pp65 antigenaemia and low CD4 count remain risk factors for CMV disease in patients receiving HAART
. AIDS 2000, 14: 1041 –1049.
11. van den Horn GJ, Meenken C, Danner SA. et al. Effects of protease inhibitors on the course of CMV retinitis in relation to lymphocyte responses in HIV+ patients.
Br J Ophthalmol 1998, 82: 988 –990.
12. Casado JL, Perez-Elias MJ, Marti-Belda P. et al. Improved outcome of cytomegalovirus retinitis in AIDS patients after introduction of protease inhibitors
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Human Retrovirol 1998, 19: 130 –134.
13. Doan S, Cochereau I, Guvenisik N. et al. Cytomegalovirus retinitis in HIV-infected patients with and without highly active antiretroviral therapy
. Am J Ophthalmol 1999, 128: 250 –251.
14. Deayton J, Mocroft A, Wilson P. et al. Loss of cytomegalovirus (CMV) viraemia following highly active antiretroviral therapy in the absence of specific anti-CMV therapy.
AIDS 1999, 13: 1203 –1206.
15. O'Sullivan CE, Drew L, McCullen D. et al. Decrease of cytomegalovirus replication in human immunodeficiency virus infected patients after treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy.
J Infect Dis 1999, 180: 847 –849.
16. Boivin G, Leblanc RP. Clearance of cytomegalovirus viraemia after initiation of highy active antiretroviral therapy.
J Infect Dis 2000, 181: 1216 –1218.
17. Autran B, Carcelain G, Li TS. et al. Positive effects of combined antiretroviral therapy on CD4 + T cell homostasis and function in advanced HIV disease.
Science 1997, 277: 112 –116.
18. Li TS, Tubiana R, Katlama C. et al. Long-lasting recovery in CD4 T-4 cell function and viral-load reduction after highly active antiretroviral therapy in advanced HIV-1 disease.
Lancet 1998, 351: 1682 –1686.
19. Komanduri KV, Viswanathan MN, Wiedler ED. et al. Restoration of cytomegalovirus-specific CD4 T-lymphocyte responses after ganciclovir and highly active antiretroviral therapy in individuals infected with HIV-1
. Nat Med 1998, 4: 953 –956.
20. Kupperman BD, Petty JG, Richmand DD. et al. Correlation between CD4 counts and prevalence of cytomegalovirus retinitis and human immunodeficiency virus-related noninfectious retinal vasculopathy in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Am J Ophthalmol 1993, 115: 575 –582.
21. Studies of Ocular Complications of AIDS (SOCA) in collaboration with the AIDS Clinical Trial Group. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) culture results, drug resistance, and clinical outcome in patients with AIDS and CMV retinitis treated with foscarnet or ganciclovir
. J Infect Dis 1997, 176: 50 –58.
22. Martin DF, Kupperman BD, Wolitz RA. et al. Related a oral ganciclovir for patients with cytomegalovirus retinitis treated with a ganciclovir implant. Roche Ganciclovir Study Group.
N Engl J Med 1999, 340: 1036 –1070.
23. Chêne G, Binquet C, Moreau JF. et al. Changes in CD4 cell count and the risk of opportunistic infection or death after highly active antiretroviral treatment.
AIDS 1998, 12: 2313 –2320.
24. Mitchell SL, Membrey WL, Youle MS. et al. Cytomegalovirus retinitis after the initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a 2 year prospective study
. Br J Ophthalmol 1999, 83: 652 –655.
25. Karavellas MP, Lowder CY, Macdonald JC. et al. Immune recovery vitritis associated with inactive CMV retinitis a new syndrome
. Arch Ophthalmol 1998 , 116: 169 –175.
26. Cassoux N, Lumbroso L, Bodaghi B. et al. Cystoïd macular oedema and cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with HIV disease treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy.
Br J Ophthalmol 1999, 83: 47 –49.
27. Reynes J, Montes B, Atoui N. et al. Significance of cytomegalovirus pp 65 antigenaemia in the diagnosis of CMV disease in human immunodeficiency virus infected patients
. J Med Virol 1996, 49: 195 –198.
28. Bek B, Boeck M, Lepenies J. et al. High level of quantitative pp 65 cytomegalovirus antigenaemia assay for diagnosis of CMV disease in AIDS patients and follow-up
. J Clin Microbiol 1996, 34: 457 –459.
29. O'Sullivan CE, Drew WL, McMullen DJ. et al. Decrease of cytomegalovirus replication in human immunodeficiency virus infected-patients after treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy.
J Infect Dis 1999, 180: 847 –849.
30. Li TS, Tubiana R, Fillet AM. et al. Negative result of cytomegalovirus blood culture with restoration of CD4 T-cell reactivity to cytomegalovirus after HAART in an HIV-1-infected patient.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1999, 20: 514 –515.
31. Furrer H, Egger M, Opravil M. et al. Discontinuation of primary prophylaxis againstPneumocystis cariniipneumonia in HIV-1 infected adults treated with combination antiretroviral therapy
. N Eng J Med 1999, 340: 1301 –1306.
32. Schneider MM, Borleffs JC, Stolk RP. et al. Discontinuation of prophylaxis forPneumocystis cariniipneumonia in HIV-1 infected patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy.
Lancet 1999, 353: 201 –203.
33. Weverling GL, Mocroft A, Ledergerber B. et al. Discontinuation ofPneumocystis cariniipneumonia prophylaxis after start of highly active antiretroviral theray in HIV-1 infection.
Lancet 1999, 353: 1293 –1298.
34. El Sadr WM, Burman WJ, Bjorling Grant L. et al. Discontinuation of prophylaxis againstMycobacterium aviumcomplet disease in HIV-infected patients who have a response to antiretroviral therapy
. N Engl J Med 2000, 342: 1085 –1092.
35. Tural C, Sirera G, Andreu D. et al. Long-lasting remission of cytomegalovirus retinitis without maintenance therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients
. J Infect Dis 1998, 177: 1080 –1083.
36. MacDonald JC, Toriani F, Morse L. et al. Lack of reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis after stopping CMV maintenance therapy in AIDS patients with sustained elevation in CD4 T cells in response to highly active antiretroviral therapy
. J Infect Dis 1998, 177: 1182 –1187.
37. Vrabec TR, Baldassano VF, Whitcut SM. et al. Discontinuation of maintenance therapy in patients with quiescent cytomegalovirus retinitis and elevated CD4 counts.
Ophthalmology 1998, 105: 1259 –1264.
38. Whitcup SM, Fortin E, Lindblad AS. et al. Discontinuation of anticytomegalovirus therapy in patients with HIV infection and cytomegalovirus retinitis.
J Am Med Assoc 1999, 282: 1633 –1637.
39. MacDonald JC, Kavarellas M, Torriani FJ. et al. Highly active antiretroviral therapy-related immune recovery in AIDS patients with cytomegalovirus retinitis.
Ophtalmology 2000, 107: 877 –881.
40. USPHS/IDSA Prevention of Opportunistic Infections Working Group. 1999 USPHS/IDSA guideline for the prevention of opportunistic infections in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus.
Clin Infect Dis 2000, 30: 29 –65.
41. Delfraissy JF et al.Prise en charge thérapeutique des personnes infectées par le VIH : rapport 1999.
Méd Sci Flammarion 1999, p. 192.
Scientific Committee: M. Jouan, R. Tubiana, C. Katlama, G. Chêne, X. Mengual, S. Matheron, T. May, D. Salmon, N. Cassoux (OPH), B. Autran (Immunologie), A.-M. Fillet (Virologie). Clinical and ophthalmological committee: I. Badelon, I. Cochereau, D. Salmon. Investigators: M. Bonmarchand, M. A. Valantin, F. Bricaire (Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France); L. Ruiz, B. Clotet (Germans Trias y Pujol, Badalona, Spain); L. Aït-Igil, P. Point, N. Kerbouche (Hôpital Pasteur, Paris, France); A. Govoni, C. Mussini, D. Palmieri (Policlinico di Modena, Italy); M. Gérard, G. Zissis, L. Caspers-Velu (CHU Saint-Pierre, Bruxelles, Belgium); C. Longuet, S. Matheron, I. Cochereau (Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France); D. Ponscarme, J. M. Molina, C. Scieux (Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France); M. Karmochkine, G. Raguin (Hôpital de la Croix St-Simon, Paris, France); M. Six, C. Bazin, S. Miocque (CHU de Caen, France); V. Leclerc, H. Moussallati (Hôpital de Mantes la Jolie, France); C. Ceppi, J. Cottalorda (Hôpital L'Archet, Nice, France); P. Clevenbergh, F. Imbert, J. M. Legay (Hôpital L'Archet, Nice, France); P. Chevojon, M. Chaneac (Centre hospitalier de Corbeil, France); H. Masson, S. Abada (CHG de Poissy, France); P. de Truchis, C. Perronne (Hôpital Raymond Poincarré, Garches, France); F. Jeanblanc (Hôpital E. Herriot, Lyon, France); C. Burty, A. Le Faou (Hôpital de Brabois, Nancy, France); P. Palmer, P. Lebon (Hôpital Saint-Vincent de Paul, Paris, France); E. Angelini, G. Chêne, M. Nciri, S. Pérusat, V. Rondé-Ousteau, M. Savès (INSERM U330, Bordeaux, France). Cited Here...
© 2001 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
This article has been cited