2646. Incidence of Myelosuppression Related to Valganciclovir Prophylaxis in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients at High Risk of CMV Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis in solid-organ transplant patients (SOT) is limited by myelotoxicity. We aimed to analyze the impact of VGCV prophylaxis on myelotoxicity and risk factors for its occurrence. Methods Retrospective single-center cohort study of adult CMV-seronegative recipients transplanted between July 2005 and November 2017. CMV D+/R− recipients received 3 to 6 months of VGCV prophylaxis whereas CMV D-/R- received no VGCV. Definitions: leukopenia < 3.5 × 109/L, significant neutropenia < 1.0 × 109/L and significant thrombocytopenia < 50 × 109/L. Results A total of 363 SOT recipients were included, 169 (47%) CMV D+/R− and 194 (53%) CMV D−/R−, with a mean age of 49.5 years and 275 (76%) males; types of organ transplant: 133 (37%) liver, 181 (50%) kidney, 37 (10%) simultaneous kidney-pancreas and 12 (3%) other. Although there was no difference in the incidence of significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia per transplant type, leukopenia in the first year was more common in liver transplant patients (P < 0.001). New onset leukopenia post-SOT, significant neutropenia (Figure 1) and significant thrombocytopenia in the first year were more common in patients receiving VGCV: 116 D+/R− (69%) vs. 52 D−/R− (31%), P < 0.001; 86 (91%) vs. 9 (9%), P < 0.001; 8 (80%) vs. 2 (20%), P = 0.050; respectively. G-CSF was used more frequently in patients receiving prophylaxis (60% CMV D+/R− vs. 10% CMV D−/R−, P < 0.001). Significant neutropenia had no impact on long-term mortality adjusted by age and transplant type (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6–2.1, P = 0.709). Significant neutropenia led to decrease immunosuppression in 90% of patients (vs. 46%, P < 0.001) and was associated with increased risk of rejection (HR 8.5, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis for significant neutropenia in the first year, VGCV prophylaxis was the only predictor of this outcome after adjusting for confounders (HR 15.1, 95% CI 7.5–30.1, P < 0.001). Conclusion VGCV prophylaxis increased the risk of significant neutropenia by 15-fold post-SOT. No other clinical variables were useful to predict this complication. Therefore, complete blood count monitoring is still needed for all SOT recipients receiving VGCV prophylaxis. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".