Literature DB >> 10577295

Prophylactic fluconazole in liver transplant recipients. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

D J Winston1, A Pakrasi, R W Busuttil.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Among persons who receive solid organ transplants, liver transplant recipients have the highest incidence of invasive fungal infection; however, no antifungal prophylaxis has been proven to be effective.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic fluconazole in liver transplant recipients.
DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
SETTING: University-affiliated transplantation center. PATIENTS: 212 liver transplant recipients who received fluconazole (400 mg/d) or placebo until 10 weeks after transplantation. MEASUREMENTS: Fungal colonization, proven superficial or invasive fungal infection, drug-related side effects, and death.
RESULTS: Fungal colonization increased in patients who received placebo (from 60% to 90%) but decreased in patients who received fluconazole (from 70% to 28%). Proven fungal infection occurred in 45 of 104 placebo recipients (43%) but in only 10 of 108 fluconazole recipients (9%) (P < 0.001). Fluconazole prevented both superficial infection (29 of 104 placebo recipients became infected [28%] compared with 4 of 108 fluconazole recipients [4%]; P < 0.001) and invasive infection (24 of 104 placebo recipients became infected [23%] compared with 6 of 108 fluconazole recipients [6%]; P < 0.001). Fluconazole prevented infection by most Candida species, except C. glabrata. However, infection and colonization by organisms intrinsically resistant to fluconazole did not seem to increase. Fluconazole was not associated with any hepatotoxicity. Patients receiving fluconazole had higher serum cyclosporine levels and more adverse neurologic events (headaches, tremors, or seizures in 13 fluconazole recipients compared with 3 placebo recipients; P = 0.01). Although the overall mortality rate was similar in both groups (12 of 108 [11%] in the fluconazole group compared with 15 of 104 [14%] in the placebo group; P > 0.2), fewer deaths related to invasive fungal infection were seen in the fluconazole group (2 of 108 patients [2%]) than in the placebo group (13 of 104 patients [13%]) (P = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic fluconazole after liver transplantation decreases fungal colonization, prevents superficial and invasive fungal infections, and has no appreciable hepatotoxicity. Although fluconazole prophylaxis is associated with fewer deaths from fungal infection, it does not improve overall survival. Patients receiving prophylactic fluconazole require close monitoring of serum cyclosporine levels to avoid neurologic toxicity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10577295     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-10-199911160-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  21 in total

1.  How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  K B Chan; M Man-Son-Hing; F J Molnar; A Laupacis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-10-30       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Cardiac Transplantation: Pre-transplant Infectious Diseases Evaluation and Post-transplant Prophylaxis.

Authors:  Susan Keay
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.725

Review 3.  Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem.

Authors:  M A Pfaller; D J Diekema
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 26.132

4.  Prophylaxis of invasive mycoses in solid organ transplantation.

Authors:  Kyle P Radack; Barbara D Alexander
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.725

5.  Infections in liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  Fabian A Romero; Raymund R Razonable
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2011-04-27

Review 6.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  E G Playford; A C Webster; T C Sorrell; J C Craig
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.267

7.  Prior antimicrobial therapy and risk for hospital-acquired Candida glabrata and Candida krusei fungemia: a case-case-control study.

Authors:  Michael Y Lin; Yehuda Carmeli; Jennifer Zumsteg; Ernesto L Flores; Jocelyn Tolentino; Pranavi Sreeramoju; Stephen G Weber
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of invasive fungal infections in adult patients. Prophylaxis, empirical, preemptive or targeted therapy, which is the best in the different hosts?

Authors:  Rafael Zaragoza; Javier Pemán; Miguel Salavert; Angel Viudes; Amparo Solé; Isidro Jarque; Emilio Monte; Eva Romá; Emilia Cantón
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 9.  Management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Stijn Blot; Koenraad Vandewoude
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.546

10.  Combined assessment of beta-D-glucan and degree of candida colonization before starting empiric therapy for candidiasis in surgical patients.

Authors:  Yoshio Takesue; Masayuki Kakehashi; Hiroki Ohge; Yuuji Imamura; Yoshiaki Murakami; Masaru Sasaki; Masahiko Morifuji; Yujiro Yokoyama; Mohei Kouyama; Takashi Yokoyama; Taijiro Sueda
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.