The Efficacy and Safety of 200 Days Valganciclovir Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in High‐Risk Kidney Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Late-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a significant problem with a standard 3-month prophylaxis regimen. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of 200 days' versus 100 days' valganciclovir prophylaxis (900 mg once daily) in 326 high-risk (D+/R-) kidney allograft recipients. Significantly fewer patients in the 200-day group versus the 100-day group developed confirmed CMV disease up to month 12 posttransplant (16.1% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.0001). Confirmed CMV viremia was also significantly lower in the 200-day group (37.4% vs. 50.9%; p = 0.015 at month 12). There was no significant difference in the rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection between the groups (11% vs. 17%, respectively, p = 0.114). Adverse events occurred at similar rates between the groups and the majority were rated mild-to-moderate in intensity and not related to study medication. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that extending valganciclovir prophylaxis (900 mg once daily) to 200 days significantly reduces the incidence of CMV disease and viremia through to 12 months compared with 100 days' prophylaxis, without significant additional safety concerns associated with longer treatment. The number needed to treat to avoid one additional patient with CMV disease up to 12 months posttransplant is approximately 5.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".