4.6 Article

Treatment of Polyomavirus Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 89, 期 9, 页码 1057-1070

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181d0e15e

关键词

Polyomavirus; Kidney transplantation; Treatment; Graft failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (PVAN) is an important cause of kidney graft loss but there is no consensus on its management. This study aimed to systematically document all published treatments for PVAN to determine the most effective therapy. Methods. A computerized search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (1950-2008) was performed. References from review articles and published abstracts from the American Transplant Congress (2005-2008) were also included. Study selection criteria included (a) population: adult (> 18 years) kidney-only, primary or repeat renal transplant recipients; (b) setting: polyoma viruria, viremia or biopsy-proven PVAN or both; and (c) treatment: immunosuppression reduction alone or with adjuvant agents. The primary outcome was graft failure rate, and secondary outcomes included acute rejection rate, elimination of viruria and viremia, graft function, patient survival, and adverse events. Results. Of 555 identified citations, 40 studies examining the effect of immunosuppression reduction alone or in combination with cidofovir, leflunomide, intravenous immunoglobulin, or ciprofloxacin were included for appraisal. Pooled results found a death-censored graft loss rate of 8/100 patient-years for immunosuppression reduction alone and 8 and 13/100 patient-years for the addition of cidofovir or leflunomide, respectively. Conclusions. There does not seem to be a graft survival benefit of adding cidofovir or leflunomide to immunosuppression reduction for the management of PVAN. However, the evidence base is poor and highlights the urgent need for adequately powered randomized trials to define the optimal treatment of this important condition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据