Incidence of valganciclovir‐related leukopenia and neutropenia in solid organ transplant recipients at high risk of cytomegalovirus disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis is associated with an increased risk of hematologic side effects. We analyzed the impact of VGCV prophylaxis on leukopenia and neutropenia rates and explored risk factors for its occurrence. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients of either CMV-seropositive (CMV D+/R-) or CMV-seronegative (CMV D-/R-) donors between July 2005 and March 2019. CMV D+/R- SOT recipients received 3-12 months of VGCV prophylaxis whereas CMV D-/R- SOT recipients received no VGCV prophylaxis. Competing risk regression was used to calculate risk factors for significant neutropenia (neutrophil count < 1000/μL). RESULTS: A total of 430 CMV-seronegative SOT recipients (median age of 52.1 years, 76.5% males) were included, of which 203 (47.2%) were CMV D+/R- and 227 (52.8%) CMV D-/R-. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio of significant neutropenia attributable to VGCV exposure in the first year post-transplant was 13.50 (95% confidence interval 7.36-27.11). Acute rejection occurred more frequently in neutropenic patients at 32.5% compared to 19.1% in those without neutropenia (p = .033). On multivariate analysis, VGCV prophylaxis for 1-90 days and 91-180 days versus no VGCV were the strongest risk factors for significant neutropenia with a sub-distribution hazard ratio of 39.6 (95% CI, 8.57-182.6) and 13.2 (95% CI, 5.46-32.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VGCV prophylaxis is limited by high rates of neutropenia. Future prospective studies are needed to assess alternative CMV prophylactic strategies in SOT recipients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".