Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35433502›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2022

Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Narisa Ruenroengbun, Tunlanut Sapankaew, Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon, Pakpoom Phoompoung, Thundon Ngamprasertchai

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Narisa RuenroengbunDepartment of Pharmaceutics (Clinical Pharmacy), Faculty of Pharmacy, Slipakorn University, Nakornprathom, Thailand.
Tunlanut SapankaewDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand.
Kamolpat ChaiyakittisoponDepartment of Community Pharmacy and Administrations, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slipakorn University, Nakornprathom, Thailand.
Pakpoom PhoompoungDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thundon NgamprasertchaiDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Silpakorn University · THMahidol University · THSiriraj Hospital · THThammasat University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of -20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -36.09% to -4.98%), -19.3% (95% CI = -32.7% to -5.93%), and -10.4% (95% CI = -19.7% to -0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.

Indexed as

Cytomegalovirus InfectionsKidney TransplantationAllograftsAntiviral AgentsCytomegalovirusGanciclovirHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicValacyclovirValganciclovirAntiviral AgentsGanciclovirValacyclovirValganciclovirallograft rejectionbiopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR)CMV prophylaxisganciclovirkidney transplantationnetwork meta-analysisvalacyclovirvalganciclovir

Identifiers

PMID35433502
PMCPMC9010655
OpenAlexW4220772594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.