A Direct and Indirect Comparison Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Cytomegalovirus Preventive Strategies in Solid Organ Transplant

被引:69
作者
Florescu, Diana F. [1 ,2 ]
Qiu, Fang [3 ]
Schmidt, Cynthia M. [4 ]
Kalil, Andre C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Div Infect Dis, Omaha, NE USA
[2] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Transplant Surg Div, Omaha, NE USA
[3] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Dept Biostat, Omaha, NE USA
[4] Nebraska Med Ctr, McGoogan Lib Med, Omaha, NE USA
关键词
cytomegalovirus; prophylaxis; preemptive; meta-analysis; efficacy; PREEMPTIVE GANCICLOVIR THERAPY; HIGH-DOSE ACYCLOVIR; ORAL GANCICLOVIR; RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION; VALGANCICLOVIR PROPHYLAXIS; INTRAVENOUS GANCICLOVIR; ANTIVIRAL PROPHYLAXIS; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; RISK-FACTOR; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1093/cid/cit945
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. Prophylactic and preemptive strategies are used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections after solid organ transplant. We assessed the safety and efficacy of both strategies for CMV prevention. Methods. A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used for pooling the data, and Q statistic and I-2 methods were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Results. Twenty studies (2744 patients) were selected for the direct analysis and 20 studies (2544 patients) for the indirect analysis. The odds of CMV syndrome (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], .60-2.03; P = .757; Q = 18.55; I-2 = 51.5%) and disease (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, .41-1.47; P = .432; Q = 32.71; I-2 = 45.0%) were not significantly different between strategies. The odds of developing late-onset CMV infections were higher for the prophylactic compared to the preemptive strategy (OR = 6.21; 95% CI, 2.55-15.20; P < .0001; Q = 9.66; I-2 = 37.9%). The odds of CMV viremia were lower for prophylaxis (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, .24-.74; P = .003; Q = 48.10; I-2 = 75.1%) than preemptive therapy. No differences between strategies were noted for graft loss (OR = 0.88; 95% CI, .37-2.13; P = .779; Q = 13.03, I-2 = 38.6%), graft loss censored for death (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, .17-3.21; P = .679; Q = 4.48; I-2 = 55.3%), acute rejection (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, .70-1.24; P = .637; Q = 12.99; I-2 = 7.6%), or mortality (OR = 0.80; 95% CI, .56-1.14; P = .220; Q = 8.76; I-2 = 0%). The odds for other infections (herpes simplex virus, varicella zoster virus, bacterial and fungal infections) did not significantly differ between strategies. Leukopenia (OR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.39-2.79; P = .0001; Q = 7.10; I-2 = 0%) and neutropenia (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.13-3.78; P = .018; Q = 6.77; I-2 = 11.4%) were more frequent with prophylaxis than with the preemptive strategy. The results of direct and indirect comparisons were consistent. Conclusions. Prophylaxis was associated with less early posttransplant viremia, but significantly more late-onset CMV infections and side effects (leukopenia and neutropenia) than the preemptive strategy. Both preventive strategies showed similar efficacy in preventing CMV syndrome and disease, with no differences regarding rejection, graft loss, death, or opportunistic infections.
引用
收藏
页码:785 / 803
页数:19
相关论文
共 63 条
[1]   Evaluation of Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-Specific T Cell Immune Reconstitution Revealed That Baseline Antiviral Immunity, Prophylaxis, or Preemptive Therapy but not Antithymocyte Globulin Treatment Contribute to CMV-Specific T Cell Reconstitution in Kidney Transplant Recipients [J].
Abate, Davide ;
Saldan, Alda ;
Fiscon, Marta ;
Cofano, Simona ;
Paciolla, Adriana ;
Furian, Lucrezia ;
Ekser, Burcin ;
Biasolo, Maria Angela ;
Cusinato, Riccardo ;
Mengoli, Carlo ;
Bonfante, Luciana ;
Rossi, Barbara ;
Rigotti, Paolo ;
Sgarabotto, Dino ;
Barzon, Luisa ;
Palu, Giorgio .
JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2010, 202 (04) :585-594
[2]   Delayed-onset primary cytomegalovirus disease and the risk of allograft failure and mortality after kidney transplantation [J].
Arthurs, Supha K. ;
Eid, Albert J. ;
Pedersen, Rachel A. ;
Kremers, Walter K. ;
Cosio, Fernando G. ;
Patel, Robin ;
Razonable, Raymund R. .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2008, 46 (06) :840-846
[3]   A RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL OF ORAL ACYCLOVIR FOR THE PREVENTION OF CYTOMEGALO-VIRUS DISEASE IN RECIPIENTS OF RENAL-ALLOGRAFTS [J].
BALFOUR, HH ;
CHACE, BA ;
STAPLETON, JT ;
SIMMONS, RL ;
FRYD, DS .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1989, 320 (21) :1381-1387
[4]  
Barkholt L, 1999, Transpl Infect Dis, V1, P89, DOI 10.1034/j.1399-3062.1999.010202.x
[5]   Prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk liver transplant recipients [J].
Bodro, Marta ;
Sabe, Nuria ;
Llado, Laura ;
Baliellas, Carme ;
Niubo, Jordi ;
Castellote, Jose ;
Fabregat, Joan ;
Rafecas, Antoni ;
Carratala, Jordi .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2012, 18 (09) :1093-1099
[6]   Role of cytomegalovirus infection in allograft rejection: a review of possible mechanisms [J].
Borchers, AT ;
Perez, R ;
Kaysen, G ;
Ansari, AA ;
Gershwin, ME .
TRANSPLANT IMMUNOLOGY, 1999, 7 (02) :75-82
[7]   Prophylactic oral ganciclovir compared with deferred therapy for control of cytomegalovirus in renal transplant recipients [J].
Brennan, DC ;
Garlock, KA ;
Singer, GG ;
Schnitzler, MA ;
Lippmann, BJ ;
Buller, RS ;
Gaudreault-Keener, M ;
Lowell, JA ;
Shenoy, S ;
Howard, TK ;
Storch, GA .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1997, 64 (12) :1843-1846
[8]  
Brennan DC, 1997, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V8, P118
[9]   The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Bucher, HC ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Griffith, LE ;
Walter, SD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :683-691
[10]  
CONTI DJ, 1995, ARCH SURG-CHICAGO, V130, P1217