English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Community-acquired respiratory virus (CARV) infections are associated with an increased risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) and graft loss in lung transplant recipients (LTR). Administration of ribavirin by aerosol was the standard of care at Stanford Health Care in the management of CARV infections. Given the sparse evidence of benefit with aerosol ribavirin (AR) and its increasing cost and teratogenic risk for exposed healthcare personnel, AR was restricted to the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in 2016 and was ultimately removed from formulary in 2017. Oral (PO) ribavirin was used at the discretion of the transplant team. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of AR compared with PO ribavirin in lung transplant recipients. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult lung transplant recipients diagnosed with CARV (metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus, and RSV) infections treated with either AR or PO ribavirin. The analysis included the first treatment course of ribavirin by either route and patients were excluded if they received ribavirin in the prior 12 months. The primary outcome was the development/progression of CLAD, acute organ rejection, and overall mortality. Results Of 85 patients, 41 received AR and 44 received PO ribavirin. There was no significant difference in the following clinical outcomes with AR and oral ribavirin, respectively: development or progression of CLAD (30 days: 9.7% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.4227; 90 days: 14.6% vs. 6.8%, P = 0.303; 6 months: 17% vs. 9%, P = 0.3413; 12 months: 24% vs. 15.9%, P = 0.4188), acute organ rejection (90 days: 7.3% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.6689; 6 months: 12.1% vs. 9%, P = 0.7329; 12 months: 19.5% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.5635), and overall mortality (30 days: 0% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.4947; 90 days: 7.3% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.6689; 6 months: 7.3% vs. 9%, P = 1.0; 12 months: 7.3% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.4858). There was no observable difference in reported adverse effects between AR and PO ribavirin. Conclusion Lung transplant recipients with CARV infections had similar outcomes when treated with AR or PO ribavirin. Oral ribavirin is a less costly treatment than AR, but the efficacy of ribavirin by any route remains questionable. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

2640. Aerosol vs. Oral Ribavirin for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Respiratory Virus Infections in Lung Transplant Recipients