Long-Term Outcomes of CMV Disease Treatment with Valganciclovir Versus IV Ganciclovir in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though an important cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplantation (SOT), the long-term outcomes of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease treatment have not been well studied. In a randomized trial, 321 SOT recipients with CMV disease were followed 1 year after treatment with either twice daily intravenous ganciclovir or oral valganciclovir (for 21 days) followed by once daily valganciclovir until day 49 in all patients. Clinical and viral eradication of CMV disease was similar between groups. Clinical recurrence beyond day 49 was found in 15.1% and virological recurrence in 30.0%, no difference between groups (p > 0.77). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor for recurrence was failure to eradicate DNAemia by day 21 (clinical: OR 3.9 [1.3-11.3], p = 0.012; virological: OR 5.6 [2.5-12.6], p < 0.0001). Eight patients developed ganciclovir resistance, with no difference between groups (p = 0.62). Twenty patients (valganciclovir: 11, ganciclovir: 9, p = 0.82) died, 12 due to infections, two involving CMV disease. There were no differences in long-term outcomes between treatment arms, further supporting the use of oral valganciclovir for treatment of CMV disease. Persistent DNAemia at day 21, CMV IgG serostatus and development of resistance may be relevant factors for further individualization of treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".