Effectiveness of Valganciclovir 900mg Versus 450mg for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in Renal Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Valganciclovir 900 mg/day is approved for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis, but 450 mg/day is seems also effective. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of low-dose versus high-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis in renal transplantation recipients. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted up to November 29, 2016. The primary outcomes were incidences of CMV, CMV disease, mortality and opportunistic infection. The second outcomes were acute rejection, allograft loss, adverse drug reaction (ADR). RESULTS: 7 cohort studies, all with high quality involving (1431 patients) were included. There was no significant difference of the incidence of following CMV disease (1271 patients, odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.43, p=0.36), acute rejection (1343 patients, OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.53-1.14, p=0.19), allograft loss (1271 patients, OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.31-1.35, p=0.24), mortality (1271 patients, OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.20-1.47, p=0.23) and opportunistic infections (OI) (985 patients, OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.52-1.10, p=0.14) between the low-dose and the high-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis. And no significant difference was observed for premature valganciclovir discontinuation (1010 patients, OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.52-1.25, p=0.33) and the incidence of leukopenia (1082 patients, OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.34-1.22, p=0.18) between the two regimens. CONCLUSION: 450 mg and 900 mg doses of valganciclovir are equipotent for CMV universal prophylaxis. CMV 450 mg prophylaxis should be used for renal transplant recipients. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".