The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Efficacy and Safety of Valganciclovir vs. Oral Ganciclovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Open accessAbstract
We compared the efficacy and safety of valganciclovir with those of oral ganciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients of organs from seropositive donors (D+/R-). In this randomised, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy study, 364 CMV D+/R- patients received valganciclovir 900 mg once daily or oral ganciclovir 1000 mg three times a day (tid) within 10 days of transplant and continued through 100 days. CMV disease, plasma viremia, acute graft rejection, graft loss and safety were analyzed up to 6 and 12 months post-transplant. Endpoint committee-defined CMV disease developed in 12.1% and 15.2% of valganciclovir and ganciclovir patients, respectively, by 6 months, though with a difference in the relative efficacy of valganciclovir and ganciclovir between organs (i.e. an organ type-treatment interaction). By 12 months, respective incidences were 17.2% and 18.4%, and the incidence of investigator-treated CMV disease events was comparable in the valganciclovir (30.5%) and ganciclovir (28.0%) arms. CMV viremia during prophylaxis was significantly lower with valganciclovir (2.9% vs. 10.4%; p=0.001), but was comparable by 12 months (48.5% valganciclovir vs 48.8% ganciclovir). Time-to-onset of CMV disease and to viremia were delayed with valganciclovir; rates of acute allograft rejection were generally lower with valganciclovir. Except for a higher incidence of neutropenia with valganciclovir (8.2%, vs 3.2% ganciclovir) the safety profile was similar for both drugs. Overall, once-daily oral valganciclovir was as clinically effective and well-tolerated as oral ganciclovir tid for CMV prevention in high-risk SOT recipients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kotton, C. N., Kumar, D., Caliendo, A. M., Åsberg, A., Chou, S., Snydman, D. R., Allen, U., & Humar, A. (2010) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3181cee42f · Cited by 965
Self-citationCytomegalovirus Infections in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Review
Ramanan, P., & Razonable, R. R. (2013) · Infection & Chemotherapy · doi:10.3947/ic.2013.45.3.260 · Cited by 339
Zhen, H., Fang, F., Ye, D.-Y., Shu, S.-N., Zhou, Y.-F., Dong, Y.-S., Nie, X.-C., & Li, G. (2006) · Antiviral Research · doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2006.03.017 · Cited by 73
Singh, N., & Sun, H.-Y. (2008) · Liver Transplantation · doi:10.1002/lt.21587 · Cited by 40
Clinical Aspects of Liver Transplantation
Mangus, R. S., & Tector, A. J. (2011) · Practical Hepatic Pathology: A Diagnostic Approach · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-06803-4.00041-1 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Paya, C., Humar, A., Dominguez, E., Washburn, K., Blumberg, E., Alexander, B., Freeman, R., Heaton, N., & Pescovitz, M. D.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 611-620
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059471557
- Cited by
- 880
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 45.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy and Safety of Valganciclovir vs. Oral Ganciclovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00382.x
- The paper
- Paya, C., Humar, A., Dominguez, E., Washburn, K., Blumberg, E., Alexander, B., Freeman, R., Heaton, N., & Pescovitz, M. D. (2004). Efficacy and Safety of Valganciclovir vs. Oral Ganciclovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00382.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.