Valacyclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.

Clinical transplantation and research Pub Date : 2025-03-31 Epub Date: 2024-11-08 DOI:10.4285/ctr.24.0034
Leonardo Januário Campos Cardoso, Kleuber Arias Meireles Martins, Paulo Vitor Marques, Ivan Petterson Santana Teixeira, Ester Magalhães, Juan Lima Minkauskas, Isabela Coutinho Faria, Filipe Melo Ribeiro
{"title":"Valacyclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.","authors":"Leonardo Januário Campos Cardoso, Kleuber Arias Meireles Martins, Paulo Vitor Marques, Ivan Petterson Santana Teixeira, Ester Magalhães, Juan Lima Minkauskas, Isabela Coutinho Faria, Filipe Melo Ribeiro","doi":"10.4285/ctr.24.0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopenia/neutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09-5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.91; P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopenia/neutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24-1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61-3.38; P=0.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.</p>","PeriodicalId":519901,"journal":{"name":"Clinical transplantation and research","volume":" ","pages":"24-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11959438/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical transplantation and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4285/ctr.24.0034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs.

Methods: Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopenia/neutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results: Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09-5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.91; P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopenia/neutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24-1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61-3.38; P=0.4).

Conclusions: The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.

肾移植受者预防巨细胞病毒的伐昔洛韦与伐更昔洛韦:系统综述和比较荟萃分析。
背景:缬更昔洛韦(ValG)是肾移植受者(KTR)预防巨细胞病毒(CMV)最广泛使用的药物。然而,该药物具有剂量限制性副作用,且费用高昂。一些中心发现,伐昔洛韦(ValA)是一种经济实惠且骨髓抑制风险较低的替代药物。这两种药物的疗效比较尚未得到充分证实。本研究旨在比较 ValA 和 ValG 在 KTR 中预防 CMV 的有效性和安全性:方法:检索 Medline、Cochrane、Web of Science、Embase 和 Ovid 数据库。终点包括CMV疾病、CMV病毒血症、急性排斥反应、白细胞减少症/中性粒细胞减少症和其他感染的发生率,包括BK多瘤病毒和非CMV疱疹病毒(HVs)。采用随机效应模型对风险比(RRs)及95%置信区间(CIs)进行了汇总:共纳入六项研究,包括 888 名患者(438 名接受 ValA 治疗)。各组在CMV病毒血症发生率(RR,0.70;95% CI,0.31-1.57;P=0.4)和CMV疾病发生率(RR,0.74;95% CI,0.09-5.97;P=0.8)方面具有可比性。急性排斥反应发生率无明显差异(RR,0.97;95% CI,0.50-1.91;P=0.8)。不过,ValA 组的白细胞减少/中性粒细胞减少率明显较低(RR,0.57;95% CI,0.42-0.77;P=0.8):这两种药物在预防肾移植后CMV感染方面的疗效相当。不过,ValA 对骨髓抑制的影响可能较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信