Literature DB >> 24385444

A direct and indirect comparison meta-analysis on the efficacy of cytomegalovirus preventive strategies in solid organ transplant.

Diana F Florescu1, Fang Qiu, Cynthia M Schmidt, Andre C Kalil.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic and preemptive strategies are used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections after solid organ transplant. We assessed the safety and efficacy of both strategies for CMV prevention.
METHODS: A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used for pooling the data, and Q statistic and I(2) methods were used to assess statistical heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Twenty studies (2744 patients) were selected for the direct analysis and 20 studies (2544 patients) for the indirect analysis. The odds of CMV syndrome (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], .60-2.03; P = .757; Q = 18.55; I(2) = 51.5%) and disease (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, .41-1.47; P = .432; Q = 32.71; I(2) = 45.0%) were not significantly different between strategies. The odds of developing late-onset CMV infections were higher for the prophylactic compared to the preemptive strategy (OR = 6.21; 95% CI, 2.55-15.20; P < .0001; Q = 9.66; I(2) = 37.9%). The odds of CMV viremia were lower for prophylaxis (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, .24-.74; P = .003; Q = 48.10; I(2) = 75.1%) than preemptive therapy. No differences between strategies were noted for graft loss (OR = 0.88; 95% CI, .37-2.13; P = .779; Q = 13.03, I(2) = 38.6%), graft loss censored for death (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, .17-3.21; P = .679; Q = 4.48; I(2) = 55.3%), acute rejection (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, .70-1.24; P = .637; Q = 12.99; I(2) = 7.6%), or mortality (OR = 0.80; 95% CI, .56-1.14; P = .220; Q = 8.76; I(2) = 0%). The odds for other infections (herpes simplex virus, varicella zoster virus, bacterial and fungal infections) did not significantly differ between strategies. Leukopenia (OR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.39-2.79; P = .0001; Q = 7.10; I(2) = 0%) and neutropenia (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.13-3.78; P = .018; Q = 6.77; I(2) = 11.4%) were more frequent with prophylaxis than with the preemptive strategy. The results of direct and indirect comparisons were consistent.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis was associated with less early posttransplant viremia, but significantly more late-onset CMV infections and side effects (leukopenia and neutropenia) than the preemptive strategy. Both preventive strategies showed similar efficacy in preventing CMV syndrome and disease, with no differences regarding rejection, graft loss, death, or opportunistic infections.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cytomegalovirus; efficacy; meta-analysis; preemptive; prophylaxis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24385444     DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit945

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Infect Dis        ISSN: 1058-4838            Impact factor:   9.079


  7 in total

Review 1.  Antiviral Therapeutics in Pediatric Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  William R Otto; Abby Green
Journal:  Infect Dis Clin North Am       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 5.982

2.  Cytomegalovirus disease in de novo kidney-transplant recipients: comparison of everolimus-based immunosuppression without prophylaxis with mycophenolic acid-based immunosuppression with prophylaxis.

Authors:  Louis Manière; Johan Noble; Lionel Rostaing; Thomas Jouve; Florian Terrec; Hamza Naciri Bennani; Eloi Chevallier; Bénédicte Janbon; Raphaele Germi; Mathilde Bugnazet; Farida Imerzoukene; Paolo Malvezzi
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 3.  Herpesvirus Respiratory Infections in Immunocompromised Patients: Epidemiology, Management, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Gail E Reid; Joseph P Lynch; Samuel Weigt; David Sayah; John A Belperio; Shellee A Grim; Nina M Clark
Journal:  Semin Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 3.119

4.  Cytomegalovirus Exposure and the Risk of Overall Infection After Kidney Transplantation: A Cohort Study on the Indirect Effects Attributable to Viral Replication.

Authors:  Isabel Rodríguez-Goncer; María Ruiz-Ruigómez; Francisco López-Medrano; Hernando Trujillo; Esther González; Natalia Polanco; Eduardo Gutiérrez; Rafael San Juan; Laura Corbella; Tamara Ruiz-Merlo; Patricia Parra; María Dolores Folgueira; Amado Andrés; José María Aguado; Mario Fernández-Ruiz
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.782

5.  Mortality in solid organ transplant recipients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Authors:  Andre C Kalil; Diana F Florescu
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 9.369

6.  Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Narisa Ruenroengbun; Tunlanut Sapankaew; Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon; Pakpoom Phoompoung; Thundon Ngamprasertchai
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 6.073

7.  Clinical correlates of pp65 antigenemia monitoring in the first months of post kidney transplant in patients undergoing universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy.

Authors:  Fabiana Rabe Carvalho; Rachel Ingrid Juliboni Cosendey; Cintia Fernandes Souza; Thalia Medeiros; Paulo Alexandre Menezes; Andrea Alice Silva; Jorge Reis Almeida; Jocemir Ronaldo Lugon
Journal:  Braz J Infect Dis       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 3.257

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.