High Dose Valacyclovir Is Highly Effective to Prevent Cytomegalovirus and Other Herpes Viruses Viremia After Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 1140 Poster Board I-162 Introduction Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains the most significant viral pathogen following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Pre-emptive therapy has now become the most commonly used strategy to prevent CMV disease. However, the use of a very effective anti-viral agent could theoretically minimize the risk of disease caused by CMV and other herpesviridae as well as abrogate prospective surveillance after allogeneic transplant. Valacyclovir, the L-valyl ester oral pro-drug of acyclovir, has excellent bioavailability, resulting in high plasma exposures similar to those following IV acyclovir administration. This property confers to valacyclovir antiviral activity against CMV and other herpesviridae. We hypothesized that universal prophylaxis with valacyclovir until day +100 after allogeneic transplant in recipients at high risk of CMV reactivation would lead to a decreased incidence of CMV viremia. Patients and methods Between 2003 and 2005, we conducted a prospective, randomized study in two allogeneic transplant centers in the Province of Quebec, Canada. Eligibility criteria included therapy with allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, recipient CMV seropositivity, ability to follow protocol and give informed consent. One group was randomized to receive high dose acyclovir (500 mg/m2 iv TID from day -1 till oral intake was resumed followed by valacyclovir 2000 mg QID until day +100 after transplant (n=32), while the control group was followed using a PCR-based (Cobas system, Amplicor Monitor CMV test, Roche) preemptive approach (n=23). Valacyclovir doses were adjusted according to renal function. In addition, weekly specimens, from before initiation of conditioning regimen until day +100, were also collected in both groups of patients in order to compare incidences of other herpes viruses viremia (HSV, EBV) by real-time PCR. All patients with a positive CMV viremia were immediately treated with ganciclovir 5 mg/kg BID until disappearance of positive signal (minimum of 2 weeks) followed by 2 additional weeks. Recurrences were treated as inititial episodes. Primary end point was incidence of CMV viremia by day +100. Results Both groups of patients were similar regarding age, type of transplant (sibling vs unrelated donor), HLA compatibility, conditioning regimen (myeloablative vs reduced intensity), GVHD prophylaxis, graft nature and content and acute or chronic GVHD incidence. Valacyclovir was highly effective to reduce the incidence of CMV viremia. In the Valacyclovir group, CMV viremia occurred in 6 patients (6/31;19%) compared to 12 (12/23;63%) in the control group. Cox regression demonstrates a protective effect with valacyclovir (HR, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10-0.74; p=0.01). Time to CMV viremia was identical in both groups (day +39 vs +36); however, the median viral load was lower in the valacyclovir group (748 vs 8043) although this difference did not reach statistical difference. Similar to CMV, both incidences of EBV and HSV viremia were significantly lower in the valacyclovir group (EBV: 4% vs 28%, p=0.005; HSV: 4% vs 30%, p=0.002). Day +100 mortality and at last follow-up are similar in both groups. Valacyclovir use was safe and well tolerated by most allogeneic transplant recipients but required frequent dose modification according to creatinine level. Conclusions Valacyclovir prophylaxis until day +100 is effective to prevent CMV, HSV and EBV reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic transplantation. Further studies in larger numbers of patients are needed to precise the optimal use of valacyclovir in this patient population. Disclosures Off Label Use: Valacyclovir was used to prevent CMV reactivation following allogeneic transplantation under an experimental protocol approved by our IRB.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».