Robin Wm Vernooij, Mini Michael, Julia Mt Colombijn, Daniel S Owers, Angela C Webster, Giovanni Fm Strippoli, Elisabeth M Hodson
{"title":"对巨细胞病毒病毒血症进行先期治疗,以预防实体器官移植受者感染巨细胞病毒疾病。","authors":"Robin Wm Vernooij, Mini Michael, Julia Mt Colombijn, Daniel S Owers, Angela C Webster, Giovanni Fm Strippoli, Elisabeth M Hodson","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD005133.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and death in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006 and updated in 2013.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the benefits and harms of pre-emptive treatment of CMV viraemia to prevent CMV disease and death (any cause) and the indirect effects of CMV infection (acute rejection, graft loss, opportunistic infections) in solid organ transplant recipients.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 17 December 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing pre-emptive treatment with placebo, no specific treatment, or antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted all data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed per outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>In this update, we have included seven new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 22 (1883 participants). Of these, seven investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or standard care, 12 looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, one study investigated oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment, one investigated pre-emptive valganciclovir versus pre-emptive ganciclovir, and one investigated letermovir 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, South Korea, and the USA. Organ transplant recipients included kidney, liver, heart, lung, and kidney-pancreas. Thirteen studies were single-centre studies, six were multicentre, and three were unknown. The number of participants ranged from 12 to 296. Overall, selection bias was unclear (55%); performance, detection and attrition bias were high (91%, 63% and 95%, respectively), and reporting bias was low (55%). Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease (7 studies, 315 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; I<sup>2</sup> = 54%; moderate-certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference in death (any cause) (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may result in little or no difference in CMV organ involvement, CMV-associated symptoms, acute rejection, graft loss, other infections or leucopenia. Compared to prophylaxis, pre-emptive treatment may make little or no difference to the risk of developing CMV disease (11 studies, 1322 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 54%; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little or no difference to death (any cause) (9 studies, 1098 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.52; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may increase the risk of CMV infection (8 studies, 867 participants: RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.61; I<sup>2</sup> = 66%; low-certainty evidence). The risk of leucopenia (7 studies, 869 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87; I<sup>2</sup> = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence) and neutropenia (5 studies, 859 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; I<sup>2</sup> = 0% moderate certainty evidence) probably decreases with pre-emptive therapy. There may be little or no difference in the risks of acute rejection, graft loss, and infections other than CMV. Single studies were identified for comparisons between different pre-emptive treatments: 1) oral ganciclovir versus IV ganciclovir; 2) valganciclovir versus ganciclovir; 3) 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. No differences between these treatment modalities in terms of CMV disease, death (any cause), or adverse events were identified.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>In this review, we have included seven new studies, yet the available evidence is overall of low certainty and the conclusions remain similar to the previous version of this review. Pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with placebo or standard care. There were no clear differences between pre-emptive treatment and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease or reduce the risk of death (any cause). The risk of CMV infection may be higher for patients receiving pre-emptive therapy, but the risk of adverse events, such as leucopenia, is probably lower.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD005133"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11729901/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.\",\"authors\":\"Robin Wm Vernooij, Mini Michael, Julia Mt Colombijn, Daniel S Owers, Angela C Webster, Giovanni Fm Strippoli, Elisabeth M Hodson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD005133.pub4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and death in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006 and updated in 2013.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the benefits and harms of pre-emptive treatment of CMV viraemia to prevent CMV disease and death (any cause) and the indirect effects of CMV infection (acute rejection, graft loss, opportunistic infections) in solid organ transplant recipients.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 17 December 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing pre-emptive treatment with placebo, no specific treatment, or antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted all data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed per outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>In this update, we have included seven new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 22 (1883 participants). Of these, seven investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or standard care, 12 looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, one study investigated oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment, one investigated pre-emptive valganciclovir versus pre-emptive ganciclovir, and one investigated letermovir 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, South Korea, and the USA. Organ transplant recipients included kidney, liver, heart, lung, and kidney-pancreas. Thirteen studies were single-centre studies, six were multicentre, and three were unknown. The number of participants ranged from 12 to 296. Overall, selection bias was unclear (55%); performance, detection and attrition bias were high (91%, 63% and 95%, respectively), and reporting bias was low (55%). Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease (7 studies, 315 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; I<sup>2</sup> = 54%; moderate-certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference in death (any cause) (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may result in little or no difference in CMV organ involvement, CMV-associated symptoms, acute rejection, graft loss, other infections or leucopenia. Compared to prophylaxis, pre-emptive treatment may make little or no difference to the risk of developing CMV disease (11 studies, 1322 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 54%; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little or no difference to death (any cause) (9 studies, 1098 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.52; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may increase the risk of CMV infection (8 studies, 867 participants: RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.61; I<sup>2</sup> = 66%; low-certainty evidence). The risk of leucopenia (7 studies, 869 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87; I<sup>2</sup> = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence) and neutropenia (5 studies, 859 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; I<sup>2</sup> = 0% moderate certainty evidence) probably decreases with pre-emptive therapy. There may be little or no difference in the risks of acute rejection, graft loss, and infections other than CMV. Single studies were identified for comparisons between different pre-emptive treatments: 1) oral ganciclovir versus IV ganciclovir; 2) valganciclovir versus ganciclovir; 3) 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. No differences between these treatment modalities in terms of CMV disease, death (any cause), or adverse events were identified.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>In this review, we have included seven new studies, yet the available evidence is overall of low certainty and the conclusions remain similar to the previous version of this review. Pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with placebo or standard care. There were no clear differences between pre-emptive treatment and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease or reduce the risk of death (any cause). The risk of CMV infection may be higher for patients receiving pre-emptive therapy, but the risk of adverse events, such as leucopenia, is probably lower.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"CD005133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11729901/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005133.pub4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005133.pub4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:巨细胞病毒(CMV)是实体器官移植受者发病和死亡的重要原因。已建议使用抗病毒药物对巨细胞病毒血症患者进行预防性治疗,作为常规预防巨细胞病毒疾病的替代方法。本文是对2006年首次发表、2013年更新的Cochrane综述的更新。目的:确定巨细胞病毒血症预防巨细胞病毒疾病和死亡(任何原因)的益处和危害,以及实体器官移植受者巨细胞病毒感染(急性排斥反应、移植物丢失、机会性感染)的间接影响。检索方法:使用与本综述相关的检索词检索到2024年12月17日的Cochrane肾脏和移植研究登记册。通过检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE和EMBASE、会议记录、国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)检索门户网站和clinicaltrials .gov来确定登记册中的研究:我们纳入了随机对照试验(rct)和准rct,比较了实体器官移植受者的预防性治疗与安慰剂、无特异性治疗或抗病毒预防。数据收集和分析:两位作者独立评估了已确定研究的合格性,评估了偏倚风险,并提取了所有数据。结果用风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)表示。采用随机效应模型进行统计分析。采用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法评估每个结果的证据确定性。主要结果:在本次更新中,我们纳入了7项新研究,使纳入的研究总数达到22项(1883名受试者)。其中,7个研究了先发制人治疗与安慰剂或标准治疗的对比,12个研究了先发制人治疗与抗病毒预防的对比,1个研究了口服与静脉注射先发制人治疗的对比,1个研究了先发制人的缬更昔洛韦与先发制人的更昔洛韦的对比,1个研究了40mg 2次/天与80mg 1次/天的对比。研究在澳大利亚、巴西、捷克共和国、德国、意大利、日本、挪威、西班牙、韩国和美国进行。器官移植受者包括肾、肝、心、肺和肾胰。13项研究为单中心研究,6项为多中心研究,3项为未知研究。参与人数从12人到296人不等。总体而言,选择偏差不明确(55%);性能、检测和损耗偏差高(分别为91%、63%和95%),报告偏差低(55%)。与安慰剂或标准治疗相比,预防性治疗可能降低巨细胞病毒疾病的风险(7项研究,315名受试者:RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11至0.80;I2 = 54%;中等确定性证据),但可能导致死亡(任何原因)的差异很小或没有差异(3项研究,176名受试者:RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35至4.30;I2 = 0%;确定性的证据)。在巨细胞病毒器官受累性、巨细胞病毒相关症状、急性排斥反应、移植物丢失、其他感染或白细胞减少方面,先发制人的治疗可能导致很少或没有差异。与预防相比,先发制人的治疗可能对CMV疾病发生的风险影响很小或没有影响(11项研究,1322名参与者:RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47至2.01;I2 = 54%;低确定性证据),可能对死亡(任何原因)影响很小或没有影响(9项研究,1098名受试者:RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60至1.52;I2 = 0%;moderate-certainty证据)。预防性治疗可能增加CMV感染的风险(8项研究,867名受试者:RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.48 - 2.61;I2 = 66%;确定性的证据)。白细胞减少的风险(7项研究,869名受试者:RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 ~ 0.87;I2 = 33%;中度确定性证据)和中性粒细胞减少症(5项研究,859名受试者:RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 ~ 0.90;I2 = 0%中度确定性证据)可能因先发制人治疗而降低。在急性排斥反应、移植物丢失和巨细胞病毒以外的感染风险方面,可能没有或只有很少的差异。对不同的预防性治疗方法进行了单个研究的比较:1)口服更昔洛韦与静脉注射更昔洛韦;2)缬更昔洛韦vs更昔洛韦;3) 40毫克两次/天vs 80毫克一次/天。这些治疗方式在巨细胞病毒疾病、死亡(任何原因)或不良事件方面没有差异。作者结论:在本综述中,我们纳入了7项新研究,但现有证据总体上是低确定性的,结论与本综述的前一版本相似。与安慰剂或标准治疗相比,先发制人的治疗可能降低巨细胞病毒疾病的风险。在预防巨细胞病毒疾病或降低死亡风险(任何原因)方面,预防性治疗和预防性治疗没有明显差异。 接受先发制人治疗的患者感染巨细胞病毒的风险可能更高,但不良事件(如白细胞减少)的风险可能较低。
Pre-emptive treatment for cytomegalovirus viraemia to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.
Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and death in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment of patients with CMV viraemia using antiviral agents has been suggested as an alternative to routine prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006 and updated in 2013.
Objectives: To determine the benefits and harms of pre-emptive treatment of CMV viraemia to prevent CMV disease and death (any cause) and the indirect effects of CMV infection (acute rejection, graft loss, opportunistic infections) in solid organ transplant recipients.
Search methods: The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 17 December 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing pre-emptive treatment with placebo, no specific treatment, or antiviral prophylaxis in solid organ transplant recipients.
Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted all data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was assessed per outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Main results: In this update, we have included seven new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 22 (1883 participants). Of these, seven investigated pre-emptive treatment versus placebo or standard care, 12 looked at pre-emptive treatment versus antiviral prophylaxis, one study investigated oral versus intravenous pre-emptive treatment, one investigated pre-emptive valganciclovir versus pre-emptive ganciclovir, and one investigated letermovir 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, South Korea, and the USA. Organ transplant recipients included kidney, liver, heart, lung, and kidney-pancreas. Thirteen studies were single-centre studies, six were multicentre, and three were unknown. The number of participants ranged from 12 to 296. Overall, selection bias was unclear (55%); performance, detection and attrition bias were high (91%, 63% and 95%, respectively), and reporting bias was low (55%). Compared with placebo or standard care, pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease (7 studies, 315 participants: RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; I2 = 54%; moderate-certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference in death (any cause) (3 studies, 176 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.30; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may result in little or no difference in CMV organ involvement, CMV-associated symptoms, acute rejection, graft loss, other infections or leucopenia. Compared to prophylaxis, pre-emptive treatment may make little or no difference to the risk of developing CMV disease (11 studies, 1322 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.01; I2 = 54%; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little or no difference to death (any cause) (9 studies, 1098 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive treatment may increase the risk of CMV infection (8 studies, 867 participants: RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.61; I2 = 66%; low-certainty evidence). The risk of leucopenia (7 studies, 869 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence) and neutropenia (5 studies, 859 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0% moderate certainty evidence) probably decreases with pre-emptive therapy. There may be little or no difference in the risks of acute rejection, graft loss, and infections other than CMV. Single studies were identified for comparisons between different pre-emptive treatments: 1) oral ganciclovir versus IV ganciclovir; 2) valganciclovir versus ganciclovir; 3) 40 mg twice/day versus 80 mg once/day. No differences between these treatment modalities in terms of CMV disease, death (any cause), or adverse events were identified.
Authors' conclusions: In this review, we have included seven new studies, yet the available evidence is overall of low certainty and the conclusions remain similar to the previous version of this review. Pre-emptive treatment probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with placebo or standard care. There were no clear differences between pre-emptive treatment and prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease or reduce the risk of death (any cause). The risk of CMV infection may be higher for patients receiving pre-emptive therapy, but the risk of adverse events, such as leucopenia, is probably lower.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.