Real-World Effectiveness and Renal Safety of Foscarnet for CMV Reactivation After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Setting
2.2. Patient Selection and Data Collection
2.3. CMV Monitoring and Definitions
2.4. Foscarnet Treatment and CMV Management Approach
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Patient and Transplantation Characteristics
3.2. Characteristics of CMV Reactivation and Foscarnet Therapy
3.3. Renal Toxicity and Laboratory Findings
3.4. Survival Outcomes
3.5. Factors Associated with Acute Kidney Injury
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| AKI | Acute Kidney Injury |
| allo-HCT | Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation |
| ATG | Anti-Thymocyte Globulin |
| BK | BK Polyomavirus |
| CI | Confidence Interval |
| CMV | Cytomegalovirus |
| DNA | Deoxyribonucleic acid |
| GVHD | Graft-versus-Host Disease |
| HLA | Human Leukocyte Antigen |
| HR | Hazard Ratio |
| ICU | Intensive Care Unit |
| KDIGO | Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes |
| MAC | Myeloablative Conditioning |
| NMA | Non-Myeloablative Conditioning |
| NRM | Non-Relapse Mortality |
| OR | Odds Ratio |
| OS | Overall Survival |
| PCR | Polymerase Chain Reaction |
| PTCy | Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide |
| RIC | Reduced-Intensity Conditioning |
References
- Ljungman, P.; Chemaly, R.F.; Khawaya, F.; Alain, S.; Avery, R.; Badshah, C.; Boeckh, M.; Fournier, M.; Hodowanec, A.; Komatsu, T.; et al. Consensus definitions of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease in transplant patients including resistant and refractory CMV for use in clinical trials: 2024 update from the transplant associated virus infections forum. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2024, 79, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Reusser, P.; Einsele, H.; Lee, J.; Volin, L.; Rovira, M.; Engelhard, D.; Finke, J.; Cordonnier, C.; Link, H.; Ljungman, P.; et al. Randomized multicenter trial of foscarnet versus ganciclovir for preemptive therapy of cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood 2002, 99, 1159–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Ljungman, P.; Perez-Bercoff, L.; Jonsson, J.; Avetisyan, G.; Sparrelid, E.; Aschan, J.; Barkholt, L.; Larsson, K.; Winiarski, J.; Yun, Z.; et al. Risk factors for the development of cytomegalovirus disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Haematologica 2006, 91, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Foster, G.G.; Grant, M.J.; Thomas, S.M.; Cameron, B.; Raiff, D.; Corbet, K.; Loitsch, G.; Ferreri, C.; Horwitz, M. Treatment with foscarnet after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (Allo-HCT) is associated with long-term loss of renal function. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020, 26, 1597–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Marty, F.M.; Ljungman, P.; Chemaly, R.F.; Maertens, J.; Dadwal, S.S.; Duarte, R.F.; Haider, S.; Ullmann, A.J.; Katayama, Y.; Brown, J.; et al. Letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in hematopoietic-cell transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 2433–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Moretti, S.; Zikos, P.; Van Lint, M.; Tedone, E.; Occhini, D.; Gualandi, F.; Lamparelli, T.; Mordini, N.; Berisso, G.; Bregante, S.; et al. Foscarnet vs ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia after allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT): A randomised study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998, 22, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- El Chaer, F.; Shah, D.P.; Chemaly, R.F. How I treat resistant cytomegalovirus infection in hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. Blood 2016, 128, 2624–2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Inose, R.; Takahashi, K.; Takahashi, M.; Sugimoto, T.; Nanno, S.; Hino, M.; Nagayama, K. Long-term use of foscarnet is associated with an increased incidence of acute kidney injury in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: A retrospective observational study. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2022, 24, e13804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Metafuni, E.; Chiusolo, P.; Sica, S.; Laurenti, L.; Bregante, S.; Van Lint, M.T.; Dominietto, A.; Angelucci, E.; Bacigalupo, A. Foscarnet treatment of cytomegalovirus infection in haploidentical or unrelated donor transplants. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018, 53, 1560–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Asakura, M.; Ikegame, K.; Yoshihara, S.; Taniguchi, S.; Mori, T.; Etoh, T.; Takami, A.; Yoshida, T.; Fukuda, T.; Hatanaka, K.; et al. Use of foscarnet for cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from a related donor. Int. J. Hematol. 2010, 92, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Ruiz-Boy, S.; Pedraza, A.; Prat, M.; Salas, M.Q.; Carcelero, E.; Riu-Viladoms, G.; Suárez-Lledó, M.; Monge-Escartín, I.; Rodríguez-Lobato, L.G.; Martínez-Roca, A.; et al. At-home foscarnet administration in patients with cytomegalovirus infection post-allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A unicentric, safe, and feasible program. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Giralt, S.; Ballen, K.; Rizzo, D.; Bacigalupo, A.; Horowitz, M.; Pasquini, M.; Sandmaier, B. Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen workshop: Defining the dose spectrum. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009, 15, 367–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Karabulut, Z.T.; Dündar, T.; Çelik, S.; Keklik, M.; Ünal, A.; Gökahmetoğlu, S.; Kaynar, L. Is CMV PCR monitoring necessary for hematological malignancy during chemotherapy? A prospective single-center study. Turk. J. Hematol. 2026; in press. [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Kellum, J.A.; Lameire, N. KDIGO AKI Guideline Work Group. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: A KDIGO summary (Part 1). Crit. Care 2013, 17, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Avery, R.K.; Arav-Boger, R.; Marr, K.A.; Kraus, E.; Shoham, S.; Lees, L.; Trollinger, B.; Shah, P.; Ambinder, R.; Neofytos, D.; et al. Outcomes in transplant recipients treated with foscarnet for ganciclovir-resistant or refractory cytomegalovirus infection. Transplantation 2016, 100, e74–e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Ciarambino, T.; Crispino, P.; Giordano, M. Gender and renal insufficiency: Opportunities for their therapeutic management? Cells 2022, 11, 3820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Parikh, C.R.; McSweeney, P.; Schrier, R.W. Acute renal failure independently predicts mortality after myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Kidney Int. 2005, 67, 1999–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]

| Characteristic | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years) (median, range) | 40.5 (19–69) |
| Sex (female) | 14 (35) |
| Diagnosis | |
| Acute leukemia | 24 (60) |
| Myelofibrosis | 4 (10) |
| Hemoglobinopathies | 3 (7.5) |
| Multiple myeloma | 3 (7.5) |
| Lymphomas | 3 (7.5) |
| CML/MDS | 3 (7.5) |
| Comorbidities | 10 (25) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 6 (15) |
| Essential hypertension | 3 (7.5) |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 3 (7.5) |
| Others | 3 (7.5) |
| Donor Types | |
| Matched sibling donor | 20 (50) |
| Matched Unrelated donor | 10 (25) |
| Haploidentical donor | 5 (12.5) |
| 9/10 mismatched unrelated donor | 5 (12.5) |
| Conditioning Regimens | |
| MAC | 30 (75) |
| RIC/NMA | 10 (25) |
| Anti-thymocyte globulin | 16 (40) |
| Post-transplant cyclophosphamide | 22 (55) |
| Parameter | n (%) or Median (Range) |
|---|---|
| Primary CMV preemptive therapy before foscarnet | 18 (45) |
| Duration of CMV preemptive therapy before foscarnet (days) | 8.5 (3–29) |
| Baseline CMV viral load (IU/mL) | 523 (72–18,872) |
| Clinical symptoms of CMV infection | 23 (57.5) |
| Concurrent CMV colitis | 7 (17.5) |
| Indication for foscarnet therapy | |
| Alternative treatment to avoid bone marrow suppression | 30 (75) |
| Suspected ganciclovir resistance | 7 (17.5) |
| Delayed engraftment | 3 (7.5) |
| Time to foscarnet initiation after transplantation (days) | 22 (7–180) |
| Initial foscarnet dose of 180 mg/kg/day | 23 (57.5) |
| Foscarnet dosing frequency—Twice daily | 32 (80) |
| Foscarnet dosing frequency—Three times daily | 8 (20) |
| Duration of foscarnet therapy (days) | 9 (2–28) |
| Dose reduction required | 8 (20) |
| CMV virological response (PCR negativity achieved) | 36 (90) |
| Time to CMV PCR negativity (days) | 10 (4–28) |
| CMV recurrence after foscarnet therapy | 26/36 (72.2) |
| Time to CMV recurrence after PCR negativity (days) | 22 (3–310) |
| Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) | 16 (40) |
| Skin GVHD | 16 (40) |
| Gastrointestinal GVHD | 10 (25) |
| Liver GVHD | 3 (7.5) |
| Pulmonary GVHD | 1 (2.5) |
| Day-100 mortality | 6 (15) |
| One-year mortality | 10 (25) |
| Univariable Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Compared Factors | Deaths/Total | HR | 95% CI | p |
| Age (years) | >40.5 vs. ≤40.5 | 3/20 vs. 3/20 | 0.96 | 0.19–4.74 | 0.96 |
| Sex | male vs. female | 5/26 vs. 1/14 | 2.82 | 0.33–24.1 | 0.35 |
| Diagnosis | Other diagnoses vs. leukemia | 2/16 vs. 4/24 | 0.68 | 0.13–3.73 | 0.66 |
| Comorbidity | present vs. absent | 2/10 vs. 4/30 | 1.51 | 0.28–8.24 | 0.63 |
| Donor | Haploidentical vs. other donor types | 2/5 vs. 4/35 | 4.44 | 0.81–24.36 | 0.09 |
| PTCy | Yes vs. no | 5/22 vs. 1/18 | 4.39 | 0.51–37.55 | 0.18 |
| TBI | Yes vs. no | 4/16 vs. 2/24 | 3.24 | 0.59–17.71 | 0.18 |
| Baseline CMV viral load (IU/mL) | >523 vs. ≤523 | 1/20 vs. 5/20 | 0.18 | 0.02–1.55 | 0.12 |
| Univariable Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Compared Factors | Events/Total | OR | 95% CI | p |
| Age (years) | >40.5 vs. ≤40.5 | 10/20 vs. 7/20 | 1.86 | 0.52–6.61 | 0.34 |
| Baseline serum creatinine (mg/dL) | >0.66 vs. ≤0.66 | 11/19 vs. 6/21 | 3.44 | 0.92–12.79 | 0.07 |
| Sex | male vs. female | 14/26 vs. 3/14 | 4.28 | 0.96–19 | 0.056 |
| Diagnosis | Other diagnoses vs. leukemia | 8/16 vs. 9/24 | 1.67 | 0.46–6.01 | 0.44 |
| Comorbidity | present vs. absent | 5/10 vs. 12/30 | 1.50 | 0.36–6.32 | 0.58 |
| Donor | haploidentical vs. other donor types | 4/5 vs. 13/35 | 6.77 | 0.68–67.25 | 0.1 |
| Conditioning regimen | MAC vs. RIC | 16/30 vs. 1/10 | 10.29 | 1.15–91.63 | 0.037 |
| PTCy | Yes vs. no | 9/22 vs. 8/18 | 0.87 | 0.25–3.05 | 0.82 |
| TBI | Yes vs. no | 7/16 vs. 10/24 | 1.09 | 0.3–3.91 | 0.89 |
| Acute GVHD | Yes vs. no | 7/16 vs. 10/24 | 0.92 | 0.29–2.95 | 0.89 |
| Baseline CMV viral load (IU/mL) | >523 vs. ≤523 | 8/20 vs. 9/20 | 0.82 | 0.23–2.86 | 0.75 |
| CMV end-organ disease | Yes vs. no | 4/7 vs. 13/33 | 2.05 | 0.39–10.7 | 0.39 |
| BK viremia | Yes vs. no | 7/14 vs. 10/26 | 1.6 | 0.43–5.94 | 0.48 |
| Time to foscarnet initiation after transplantation (days) | > 22 vs. ≤ 22 | 9/19 vs. 8/21 | 1.46 | 0.42–5.15 | 0.55 |
| Treatment duration (days) | >9 vs. ≤ 9 | 7/18 vs. 10/22 | 0.76 | 0.21–2.71 | 0.68 |
| Foscarnet dosing frequency | three times daily vs. twice daily | 3/8 vs. 14/32 | 0.77 | 0.16–3.79 | 0.75 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Kaynar, L.; Ali, I.A.; Alrais, M.; Abedi, A.H.; Yiğit Kaya, S.; Çınar, O.E.; Beköz, H.S.; Maral, S. Real-World Effectiveness and Renal Safety of Foscarnet for CMV Reactivation After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15166365
Kaynar L, Ali IA, Alrais M, Abedi AH, Yiğit Kaya S, Çınar OE, Beköz HS, Maral S. Real-World Effectiveness and Renal Safety of Foscarnet for CMV Reactivation After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(16):6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15166365
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaynar, Leylagül, Ibrahim Abdi Ali, Mahmoud Alrais, Amir Hossein Abedi, Süreyya Yiğit Kaya, Olgu Erkin Çınar, Hüseyin Saffet Beköz, and Senem Maral. 2026. "Real-World Effectiveness and Renal Safety of Foscarnet for CMV Reactivation After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 16: 6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15166365
APA StyleKaynar, L., Ali, I. A., Alrais, M., Abedi, A. H., Yiğit Kaya, S., Çınar, O. E., Beköz, H. S., & Maral, S. (2026). Real-World Effectiveness and Renal Safety of Foscarnet for CMV Reactivation After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(16), 6365. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15166365

