An International Survey of Cytomegalovirus Management Practices in Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important infection in lung transplant recipients. Center-to-center variation in preventive and treatment strategies is unknown. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to 102 lung transplant programs registered with the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation and United Network for Organ Sharing. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (58%) programs responded to the survey. For CMV prevention (D+/R-), 56 of the 59 (94.9%) programs used prophylaxis and two (3.4%) of them used preemptive therapy. For R+ patients, 86.4% used prophylaxis and 13.6% used preemptive strategy. Duration of prophylaxis was extremely variable ranging from 3 months to indefinite. Adjunctive prophylactic strategies included routine viral monitoring (51% D+/R-; 44% R+) and CMV immunoglobulin (32% D+/R-; 14% R+). The medication used for prophylaxis was valganciclovir with approximately half starting with intravenous ganciclovir. 9 of the 59 (15.2%) centers reported using specific CMV prophylaxis in D-/R- patients. Methods for viral monitoring included peripheral blood polymerase chain reaction, antigenemia, bronchoalveolar lavage viral culture, and bronchoalveolar lavage polymerase chain reaction. For treatment of CMV viremia, valganciclovir or intravenous ganciclovir were used. A total of 47.5% of centers routinely decreased immunosuppression at the time of viremia. Secondary antiviral prophylaxis was used routinely by 36 of the 59 (61%) centers. CONCLUSIONS: Although prophylaxis is the most commonly used preventive strategy, significant variation exists in the way it is implemented. Specifically, duration of prophylaxis is extremely variable. Uniform international guidelines would be of value in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".