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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Valacyclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.
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.