pISSN 3022-6783
eISSN 3022-7712

View

Article View

EPub

Clin Transplant Res

Published online November 8, 2024

© The Korean Society for Transplantation

Valacyclovir versus valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Leonardo Januário Campos Cardoso1, Kleuber Arias Meireles Martins2 , Paulo Vitor Marques1 , Ivan Petterson Santana Teixeira1 , Ester Magalhães1, Juan Lima Minkauskas1 , Isabela Coutinho Faria2 , Filipe Melo Ribeiro1

1Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
2Department of Medicine, University Center of Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Correspondence to: Leonardo Januário Campos Cardoso
Department of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Alfredo Balena, 190, Centro, Belo Horizonte 30130-100, Minas Gerais, Brazil
E-mail: leonardojccardoso@hotmail.com

Received: July 9, 2024; Revised: August 28, 2024; Accepted: September 24, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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.

Keywords: Kidney, Valganciclovir, Valacyclovir, Cytomegalovirus

Supplementary information
Supplementary File