MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2927827681 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.3231.3231

Effectiveness of Acyclovir Prophylaxis Against Varicella Zoster Virus Infection after Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017· review· en· W2927827681 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Yuko Shimosato-Wada, Reo Tanoshima, Kanako Hiratoko, Masanobu Takeuchi, Shinichi Tujimoto, Norio Shiba, Shinya Ito, Takeharu Yamanaka, Shuichi Ito

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVaricella zoster virusDiscontinuationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationPostherpetic neuralgiaIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineChemoprophylaxisAciclovirAntibiotic prophylaxisImmunologyVirusViral diseaseAntibioticsHerpesviridaeAnesthesia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection is a common complication after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) and occurs in 16%-41% of transplant recipients, with a relatively high incidence. Although localized dermatomal rashes are a typical symptom of VZV infection, dissemination to internal organs and secondary bacterial infections are occasionally fatal. Furthermore, patient quality of life is impaired by postherpetic neuralgia. To reduce the incidence of VZV infection after HCT, the efficacy of long-term acyclovir prophylaxis has been evaluated. Several studies concluded that VZV infection was suppressed during prophylaxis, but increased after acyclovir discontinuation, i.e., rebound effect exists. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of acyclovir prophylaxis against VZV infection after HCT and whether rebound effect really exists or not. Methods: Medline, Embase plus Embase classics, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used for systematic review of studies from 1980 to June 23, 2017, without language restrictions. The literature search strategies used Medical Subject Headings and free text words related to “acyclovir,” “hematopoietic stem cell transplantation,” and “varicella zoster virus.” Exclusion criteria were animal or in vitro studies, case control studies, and case reports. Intervention of this research was defined as acyclovir prophylaxis after HCT. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS ) to evaluate the study quality. The primary outcome was to evaluate the incidence of VZV infection within the first year after acyclovir discontinuation compared with that in patients without acyclovir prophylaxis. The secondary outcome was the risk of VZV infection/reactivation during acyclovir prophylaxis after HCT. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to acyclovir dose (>400 or ≤400 mg), duration of acyclovir treatment (>6 or ≤6 months), and presence of disseminated disease. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for studies with a NOS score of ≥7 points. The analysis was conducted using Review Manager Version 5.3. We performed a meta-analysis using fixed effect models with risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared test and I-squared statistic. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots. Results: Of 1,803 studies from the search database, seven studies with a total of 2,226 patients were eligible. Patients were divided into the acyclovir prophylaxis (n = 1,204) and no prophylaxis groups (n = 1,022). We compared the incidence of VZV infection between the two groups, within 1 year after discontinuing acyclovir prophylaxis in the acyclovir prophylaxis group and without any acyclovir after HCT in the no prophylaxis group . Results showed that acyclovir prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of VZV infection (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.30-0.46, heterogeneity I2 = 35%, χ2 = 9.27). The risk of VZV infection/reactivation during acyclovir prophylaxis was reduced (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.12-0.24, heterogeneity I2 = 0%, χ2 = 0.41). Among four studies that reported disseminated disease, acyclovir prophylaxis reduced the RR of disseminated disease (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.58, heterogeneity I2 = 0%, χ2 = 1.02). The analysis of four studies reporting acyclovir prophylaxis for >6 months indicated that longer prophylaxis reduced the RR of VZV infection (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.27-0.43, heterogeneity I2 = 48%, χ2 = 5.80). Patients receiving low-dose acyclovir showed significant reduction in the incidence of VZV infection (RR: 0.31, high 95% CI: 0.18-0.54). Results of the sensitivity analysis for studies with NOS score of ≥7 points showed significant reduction in the incidence of VZV infection with acyclovir prophylaxis (RR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.30-0.62, heterogeneity I2 = 39%, χ2 = 8.24). Conclusions: This study showed that long-term acyclovir prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of VZV infection even after its discontinuation compared with no treatment and indicated that rebound effect did not exist. Long-term acyclovir prophylaxis for VZV infection after HCT is effective during and after therapy. This study also showed that low dose was sufficient for VZV prophylaxis. Based on our results, we recommend long-term prophylaxis for >6 months. Download : Download high-res image (97KB) Download : Download full-size image Figure . Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,057

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0240,039
Bibliométrie0,0080,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,332
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→