PubMed · 16615482
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Hideto Nakajima. 2006. [Meningitis].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16615482/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: We conducted this study to compare episodic and suppressive therapy for genital herpes about disease characteristics, disease burden, and psychologic impact. STUDY DESIGN: The authors conducted a randomized, open-label, 1-year treatment trial. RESULTS: Forty subjects were randomized to episodic therapy with valacyclovir (500 mg twice daily for 5 days) and 40 to suppressive therapy (500 mg daily). Subjects in the episodic arm experienced more outbreaks (7.87 +/- 4.65) than those in the suppressive arm (1.59 +/- 1.93) (P <0.001). Subjects in the episodic arm also had significantly more days with pain and lesions (6.5 +/- 7.3) than those in the suppressive arm (1.1 +/- 3.3) (P < 0.001), and other quantitative measures of disease burden also favored the suppressive arm. Both treatment groups had significant improvements in their recurrent genital herpes quality-of-life scores from baseline that persisted throughout the study; however, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms in these scores. CONCLUSIONS: Suppressive therapy of recurrent genital herpes with valacyclovir has a greater impact on measures of disease frequency and burden than episodic therapy. However, both treatment strategies lead to significant improvements in recurrent genital herpes quality-of-life scores. Both treatment strategies benefit patients with recurrent genital herpes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: The advantages and disadvantages of universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy and current evidence-based recommendations for preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in solid organ transplant recipients are discussed. SUMMARY: Advantages of universal prophylaxis include the ease of implementation, a reduced incidence of CMV disease, and possibly fewer indirect effects of CMV infection. Disadvantages of universal prophylaxis may include prolonged antiviral drug exposure, resistance, toxicity, the development of late-onset CMV disease, and greater drug costs. Advantages of preemptive therapy may include reduced drug exposure and decreased risk for toxicity and resistance. Disadvantages include the logistic demands of laboratory testing, uncertainty about the impact on the indirect effects of CMV disease, and the costs associated with failure to prevent CMV disease. Evidence-based guidelines call for universal prophylaxis for patients at highest risk for CMV disease. Preemptive therapy may be most appropriate for those at a moderate or low risk of CMV. Antiviral drug regimens used for universal prophylaxis depend on the type of organ transplanted and the donor-recipient CMV serostatus. The optimal preemptive drug regimen and laboratory monitoring strategy are unknown. CONCLUSION: Selection of a strategy for preventing CMV disease in solid organ transplant patients requires consideration of patient-specific risk factors as well as practical considerations, such as available resources.