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 , Michael D. Evans , Amy Hanson , Justina Hathi , Srinath Chinnakotla , Arthur Matas , 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 , Michael D. Evans , Amy Hanson , Justina Hathi , Srinath Chinnakotla , Arthur Matas , 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}
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.
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)