Effectiveness of acyclovir prophylaxis against varicella zoster virus disease after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Varicella zoster virus (VZV) disease is a common complication after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The mortality rate for disseminated VZV infection is 34%. Acyclovir has been used for the prophylaxis of VZV disease after HCT, but the effectiveness of prophylaxis is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis of the incidence of VZV disease within the first 1 year after acyclovir prophylaxis had been discontinued and assessed the risk of VZV disease during acyclovir prophylaxis. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE plus EMBASE classics, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used for a systematic search. The inclusion criteria were both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that described the effectiveness of acyclovir as prophylaxis against VZV disease after allogeneic HCT. RESULTS: We included seven studies involving a total of 2265 patients. No mortality by VZV was identified. Acyclovir prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of VZV infection within the first 1 year after discontinuation (risk ratio: 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.51). The risk of VZV disease during acyclovir prophylaxis was also reduced (risk ratio: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.12-0.24). Both short-term and long-term prophylaxis reduced the incidence of VZV infection (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30-0.86 vs RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22-0.54). Low-dose acyclovir (<400 mg/d) is sufficient to reduce the risk of VZV disease. CONCLUSION: This study showed that acyclovir prophylaxis reduced VZV infection after HCT with no fatal cases and acyclovir prophylaxis is beneficial. No significant adverse effects occurred and no delayed VZV disease was identified.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".