Valacyclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.

Autor:	Cardoso LJC; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Martins KAM; Department of Medicine, University Center of Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Marques PV; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Teixeira IPS; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Magalhães E; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Minkauskas JL; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Faria IC; Department of Medicine, University Center of Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Brazil., Ribeiro FM; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Clinical transplantation and research [Clin Transplant Res] 2024 Nov 08. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Nov 08.
DOI:	10.4285/ctr.24.0034
Abstrakt:	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.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu