...
首页> 外文期刊>Antiviral therapy >Valganciclovir as pre-emptive therapy for cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.
【24h】

Valganciclovir as pre-emptive therapy for cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

机译:Valganciclovir作为异基因造血干细胞移植受者巨细胞病毒感染的抢先疗法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: In haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in both the early and late post-transplant period. Ganciclovir (GCV) is the treatment of choice for CMV, but requires intravenous administration, a fact that complicates its long-term use. Oral valganciclovir (VGCV) and intravenous GCV were recently shown to have similar efficacy for pre-emptive CMV treatment in solid organ transplant recipients, but relatively limited data are available in HSCT recipients. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of VGCV versus intravenous GCV or foscarnet (FOS) for pre-emptive therapy of active CMV infection in allogeneic HSCT and to determine the incidence of adverse effects and relapses. METHODS: This was a 2-year prospective, comparative cohort study in which 237 episodes of pre-emptive therapy for active CMV infection were collected in 166 allogeneic HSCT recipients out of 717 included in the Spanish Network for Research on Infection in Transplantation (RESITRA/REIPI) database. Intravenous GCV was the first-line treatment in 112 episodes, intravenous FOS in 38 episodes, and oral VGCV in 87 episodes. RESULTS: VGCV was used as pre-emptive therapy for active CMV infection in 87 episodes. Excluding episodes considered as relapse, VGCV was as successful (91.4% [74/81]) as GCV (83.7% [87/14]) or FOS (75.8% [25/33]). In the VGCV arm, 7 (8.6%) cases were considered treatment failures: 4 (4.9%) because of adverse events, 1 (1.2%) due to persistent viral activity and 2 (2.5%) based on clinical decision. There were also 6 (7.4%) cases of recurrent infection. No statistically significant differences were found when compared to GCV or FOS. CONCLUSIONS: In allogeneic HSCT recipients, VGCV seemed effective and safe in the pre-emptive therapy of active CMV infection.
机译:背景:在造血干细胞移植(HSCT)接受者中,巨细胞病毒(CMV)感染在移植后的早期和晚期均对发病率和死亡率起重要作用。更昔洛韦(GCV)是CMV的首选治疗方法,但需要静脉给药,这一事实使其长期使用变得复杂。最近显示口服缬更昔洛韦(VGCV)和静脉内GCV在实体器官移植接受者中先发性CMV治疗具有相似的疗效,但HSCT接受者的数据相对有限。这项研究的目的是比较VGCV与静脉内GCV或膦甲酸酯(FOS)在同种异体HSCT中主动CMV感染的先发性治疗的疗效,并确定不良反应和复发的发生率。方法:这是一项为期2年的前瞻性比较研究,在西班牙移植性感染研究网络(RESITRA /)中的166名同种异体HSCT接受者中,收集了237次主动CMV感染的先发治疗方法。 REIPI)数据库。静脉GCV是一线治疗112例,静脉FOS发生38例,口服VGCV发生87例。结果:VGCV被用于87例活动性CMV感染的抢先治疗。排除被视为复发的发作,VGCV与GCV(83.7%[87/14])或FOS(75.8%[25/33])一样成功(91.4%[74/81])。根据临床决策,在VGCV组中,有7例(8.6%)被视为治疗失败:4例(4.9%)因不良事件,1例(1.2%)由于持续的病毒活动而2例(2.5%)。还有6例(7.4%)复发感染病例。与GCV或FOS相比,没有发现统计学上的显着差异。结论:在异基因HSCT接受者中,VGCV在主动CMV感染的先发性治疗中似乎有效且安全。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号