用于巨细胞病毒预防的 Valacyclovir 或 Valganciclovir:成人和儿童肾移植受者的随机对照试验

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 VIROLOGY
Priya S. Verghese , Michael D. Evans , Amy Hanson , Justina Hathi , Srinath Chinnakotla , Arthur Matas , Henry H. Balfour Jr
{"title":"用于巨细胞病毒预防的 Valacyclovir 或 Valganciclovir:成人和儿童肾移植受者的随机对照试验","authors":"Priya S. Verghese ,&nbsp;Michael D. Evans ,&nbsp;Amy Hanson ,&nbsp;Justina Hathi ,&nbsp;Srinath Chinnakotla ,&nbsp;Arthur Matas ,&nbsp;Henry H. Balfour Jr","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Valganciclovir (valG), a cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylactic agent, has dose-limiting side effects. The tolerability and effectiveness of valacyclovir (valA) as CMV prophylaxis is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-center trial of valA versus valG for all posttransplant CMV prophylaxis in adult and pediatric kidney recipients. Participants were randomly assigned to receive valA or valG. Primary endpoints were the incidence of CMV viremia and side-effect related drug reduction with secondary assessment of incidence of EBV viremia.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 137 sequential kidney transplant recipients enrolled, 26 % were positive and negative for CMV antibody in donor and recipient respectively. The incidence of CMV viremia (4 of 71 [6 %]; 8 of 67 [12 %] <em>P</em> = 0.23), time to viremia (<em>P</em> = 0.16) and area under CMV viral load time curve (<em>P</em> = 0.19) were not significantly different. ValG participants were significantly more likely to require side-effect related dose reduction (15/71 [21 %] versus 1/66 [2 %] <em>P</em> = 0.0003). Leukopenia was the most common reason for valG dose reduction and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was utilized for leukopenia recovery more frequently (25 % in valG vs 5 % in valA: <em>P</em> = 0.0007). Incidence of EBV viremia was not significantly different.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ValA has significantly less dose-limiting side effects than valG. In our study population, a significant increase in CMV viremia was not observed, in adults and children after kidney transplant, compared to valG.</p></div><div><h3>Trial Registration Number</h3><p>NCT01329185</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 105678"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valacyclovir or valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis: A randomized controlled trial in adult and pediatric kidney transplant recipients\",\"authors\":\"Priya S. Verghese ,&nbsp;Michael D. Evans ,&nbsp;Amy Hanson ,&nbsp;Justina Hathi ,&nbsp;Srinath Chinnakotla ,&nbsp;Arthur Matas ,&nbsp;Henry H. Balfour Jr\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Valganciclovir (valG), a cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylactic agent, has dose-limiting side effects. The tolerability and effectiveness of valacyclovir (valA) as CMV prophylaxis is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-center trial of valA versus valG for all posttransplant CMV prophylaxis in adult and pediatric kidney recipients. Participants were randomly assigned to receive valA or valG. Primary endpoints were the incidence of CMV viremia and side-effect related drug reduction with secondary assessment of incidence of EBV viremia.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 137 sequential kidney transplant recipients enrolled, 26 % were positive and negative for CMV antibody in donor and recipient respectively. The incidence of CMV viremia (4 of 71 [6 %]; 8 of 67 [12 %] <em>P</em> = 0.23), time to viremia (<em>P</em> = 0.16) and area under CMV viral load time curve (<em>P</em> = 0.19) were not significantly different. ValG participants were significantly more likely to require side-effect related dose reduction (15/71 [21 %] versus 1/66 [2 %] <em>P</em> = 0.0003). Leukopenia was the most common reason for valG dose reduction and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was utilized for leukopenia recovery more frequently (25 % in valG vs 5 % in valA: <em>P</em> = 0.0007). Incidence of EBV viremia was not significantly different.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ValA has significantly less dose-limiting side effects than valG. In our study population, a significant increase in CMV viremia was not observed, in adults and children after kidney transplant, compared to valG.</p></div><div><h3>Trial Registration Number</h3><p>NCT01329185</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"volume\":\"172 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105678\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653224000404\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VIROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653224000404","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景巨细胞病毒(CMV)预防药物伐昔洛韦(valG)具有剂量限制性副作用。方法我们在成人和儿童肾脏受者中开展了一项随机、开放标签、单中心试验,在所有移植后CMV预防中使用valA和valG。主要终点是CMV病毒血症的发生率和副作用相关的药物减量,其次评估EBV病毒血症的发生率。 结果 在137例连续肾移植受者中,26%的供者和受者的CMV抗体分别为阳性和阴性。CMV 病毒血症的发生率(71 例中有 4 例 [6 %];67 例中有 8 例 [12 %] P = 0.23)、病毒血症发生时间(P = 0.16)和 CMV 病毒载量时间曲线下面积(P = 0.19)没有显著差异。ValG 参与者需要减少与副作用相关的剂量的几率明显更高(15/71 [21 %] 对 1/66 [2 %] P = 0.0003)。白细胞减少症是缬氨酸组最常见的减量原因,而粒细胞集落刺激因子在白细胞减少症恢复期的使用率更高(缬氨酸组 25% 对缬氨酸组 5%:P = 0.0007)。在我们的研究人群中,与valG相比,肾移植后成人和儿童的CMV病毒血症没有明显增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Valacyclovir or valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis: A randomized controlled trial in adult and pediatric kidney transplant recipients

Background

Valganciclovir (valG), a cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylactic agent, has dose-limiting side effects. The tolerability and effectiveness of valacyclovir (valA) as CMV prophylaxis is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-center trial of valA versus valG for all posttransplant CMV prophylaxis in adult and pediatric kidney recipients. Participants were randomly assigned to receive valA or valG. Primary endpoints were the incidence of CMV viremia and side-effect related drug reduction with secondary assessment of incidence of EBV viremia.

Results

Of the 137 sequential kidney transplant recipients enrolled, 26 % were positive and negative for CMV antibody in donor and recipient respectively. The incidence of CMV viremia (4 of 71 [6 %]; 8 of 67 [12 %] P = 0.23), time to viremia (P = 0.16) and area under CMV viral load time curve (P = 0.19) were not significantly different. ValG participants were significantly more likely to require side-effect related dose reduction (15/71 [21 %] versus 1/66 [2 %] P = 0.0003). Leukopenia was the most common reason for valG dose reduction and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was utilized for leukopenia recovery more frequently (25 % in valG vs 5 % in valA: P = 0.0007). Incidence of EBV viremia was not significantly different.

Conclusions

ValA has significantly less dose-limiting side effects than valG. In our study population, a significant increase in CMV viremia was not observed, in adults and children after kidney transplant, compared to valG.

Trial Registration Number

NCT01329185

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Virology
Journal of Clinical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
1.10%
发文量
149
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice. The journal publishes on topics that include: • new diagnostic technologies • nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing • targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing • emerging pandemic viral threats • respiratory viruses • transplant viruses • chronic viral infections • cancer-associated viruses • gastrointestinal viruses • central nervous system viruses • one health (excludes animal health)
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信