CAJ | 학술논문

目的系统性评价先驱治疗和普遍预防两种方案预防肾移植后巨细胞病毒(CMV)感染的有效性.方法检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、万方医学网、中国生物医学期刊引文数据库,纳入比较先驱治疗和普遍预防两种方案降低肾移植受者术后CMV感染和CMV病的发生率的随机对照试验.由2名评价者根据人群、干预措施和试验结果进行文献筛选及质量评价.最终对纳入研究的文献结果进行荟萃分析.结果共纳入6篇文献,涉及752例肾移植受者.荟萃分析结果表明,普遍预防方案在减少肾移植受者术后3和12个月CMV感染风险及降低术后12个月CMV病的发生风险方面均优于先驱治疗方案(相对危险度=12.13,95％可信区间为6.59～22.36,P＜0.05;相对危险度=2.21,95 ％可信区间为1.62～3.01,P＜0.05;相对危险度=1.79,95％可信区间为1.22～2.63,P＜0.05);两组间术后机会性感染和急性排斥反应发生率的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论普遍预防方案在降低肾移植受者术后CMV感染和CMV病的发生率均较先驱治疗方案具有优势.
목적 계통성평개선구치료화보편예방량충방안예방신이식후거세포병독(CMV)감염적유효성.방법 검색PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、만방의학망、중국생물의학기간인문수거고,납입비교선구치료화보편예방량충방안강저신이식수자술후CMV감염화CMV병적발생솔적수궤대조시험.유2명평개자근거인군、간예조시화시험결과진행문헌사선급질량평개.최종대납입연구적문헌결과진행회췌분석.결과 공납입6편문헌,섭급752례신이식수자.회췌분석결과표명,보편예방방안재감소신이식수자술후3화12개월CMV감염풍험급강저술후12개월CMV병적발생풍험방면균우우선구치료방안(상대위험도=12.13,95％가신구간위6.59～22.36,P＜0.05;상대위험도=2.21,95 ％가신구간위1.62～3.01,P＜0.05;상대위험도=1.79,95％가신구간위1.22～2.63,P＜0.05);량조간술후궤회성감염화급성배척반응발생솔적차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).결론 보편예방방안재강저신이식수자술후CMV감염화CMV병적발생솔균교선구치료방안구유우세.
Objective To assess the efficacy of the two antiviral medications in preventing cytomegalovirus infection and cytomegalovirus disease in renal transplant recipients.Method We searched articles from Pubmed,EMbase,Cochrane Library,Wanfang Med Online,and China's biomedical journal citation database on line.Randomized controlled trials evaluating preemptive treatment and universal prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection and cytomegalovirus disease in renal transplant recipients were reviewed.Two reviewers screened studies and assessed study quality according to the study population,intervention measure and results.Finally data from included studies were subjected to meta-analysis.Result Six studies involving total 752 renal transplant recipients were included in this review.Compared with preemptive treatment,universal prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus infection at 3 rd and 12 th month,and the risk of cytomegalovirus disease at 12 th month after transplantation (RR =12.13,95 ％ CI.6.59～22.36,P＜0.05; RR =2.21,95％CI:1.62～3.01,P＜0.05; RR=1.79,95％Chl.22～2.63,P＜0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of other opportunistic infection and acute rejection.Conclusion Universal prophylaxis was more effective than preemptive treatment in preventing CMV infection and CMV disease in renal transplant recipients.