Extended Valganciclovir Prophylaxis in D+/R− Kidney Transplant Recipients is Associated With Long-Term Reduction in Cytomegalovirus Disease: Two-Year Results of the IMPACT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether the early reduction in cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease seen at 1 year with prolongation of antiviral prophylaxis (up to 200 days) persists in the long term is unknown. METHODS: This international, randomized, prospective, double-blind study, compared 318 CMV D+/R- kidney transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir (900 mg) once daily for up to 200 days vs. 100 days. Long-term outcomes including CMV disease, acute rejection, graft loss, patient survival, and seroconversion were assessed. RESULTS: At 2 years posttransplant, CMV disease occurred in significantly less patients in the 200- vs. the 100-day group: 21.3% vs. 38.7%, respectively (P<0.001). Between year 1 and 2, there were only 10 new cases of CMV disease; 7 in the 200-day group and 3 in the 100-day group. Patient survival was 100% in the 200-day group and 97% in the 100-day group (p=not significant). Biopsy-proven acute rejection and graft loss rates were comparable in both groups (11.6% vs. 17.2%, P=0.16, and 1.9% vs. 4.3%, P=0.22, in the 200-day vs. 100-day groups, respectively). Seroconversion was delayed in the 200-day group but was similar to the 100-day group by 2 years posttransplant (IgM or IgG seroconversion; 55.5% in the 200-day group vs. 62.0% in the 100-day group at 2-years; P=0.26). Assessment of seroconversion at the end of prophylaxis was of limited utility for predicting late-onset CMV disease. CONCLUSION: Extending valganciclovir prophylaxis from 100 to 200 days is associated with a sustained reduction in CMV disease up to 2 years posttransplant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".