ArticleClinical transplantation and research2025
Valacyclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical transplantation and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07294547 (Non-Inferiority Assessment of Valacyclovir Versus Valganciclovir as Prophylaxis Against CMV and EBV Viremia in Kidney Transplant Recipients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Non-Inferiority Assessment of Valacyclovir Versus Valganciclovir as Prophylaxis Against CMV and EBV Viremia in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Prospective Randomized Pilot Study.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs. Methods: Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopenia/neutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09-5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.91; P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopenia/neutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24-1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61-3.38; P=0.4). Conclusions: The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.