Kelly M Pennington1,2, Misbah Baqir1, Patricia J Erwin3, Raymund R Razonable4,5, Mohammad Hassan Murad2, Cassie C Kennedy1,2,4. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Library Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 4. William J. von Liebig Center for Transplantation and Clinical Regeneration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 5. Division of Infectious Disease, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding optimal strategy for antifungal prophylaxis following lung transplant. OBJECTIVE: To review data regarding antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal infections. STUDY SELECTION/APPRAISAL: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for eligible articles through December 10, 2019. Observational or controlled trials published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to the prevention of fungal infections in adult lung recipients were reviewed independently by two reviewers for inclusion. METHODS: Of 1702 articles screened, 24 were included. Data were pooled using random effects model to evaluate for the primary outcome of fungal infection. Studies were stratified by prophylactic strategy, medication, and duration (short term < 6 months and long term ≥ 6 months). RESULTS: We found no difference in the odds of fungal infection with universal prophylaxis (49/101) compared to no prophylaxis (36/93) (OR 0.76, CI: 0.03-17.98; I2 = 93%) and preemptive therapy (25/195) compared to universal prophylaxis (35/222) (OR 0.91, CI: 0.06-13.80; I2 = 93%). The cumulative incidence of fungal infections within 12 months was not different with nebulized amphotericin (0.08, CI: 0.04-0.13; I2 = 87%) compared to systemic triazoles (0.07, CI: 0.03-0.11; I2 = 21%) (P = .65). Likewise, duration of prophylaxis did not impact the incidence of fungal infections (short term: 0.11, CI: 0.05-0.17; I2 = 89%; long term: 0.06, CI: 0.03-0.08; I2 = 51%; P = .39). CONCLUSIONS: We have insufficient evidence to support or exclude a benefit of antifungal prophylaxis.
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding optimal strategy for antifungal prophylaxis following lung transplant. OBJECTIVE: To review data regarding antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal infections. STUDY SELECTION/APPRAISAL: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for eligible articles through December 10, 2019. Observational or controlled trials published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to the prevention of fungal infections in adult lung recipients were reviewed independently by two reviewers for inclusion. METHODS: Of 1702 articles screened, 24 were included. Data were pooled using random effects model to evaluate for the primary outcome of fungal infection. Studies were stratified by prophylactic strategy, medication, and duration (short term < 6 months and long term ≥ 6 months). RESULTS: We found no difference in the odds of fungal infection with universal prophylaxis (49/101) compared to no prophylaxis (36/93) (OR 0.76, CI: 0.03-17.98; I2 = 93%) and preemptive therapy (25/195) compared to universal prophylaxis (35/222) (OR 0.91, CI: 0.06-13.80; I2 = 93%). The cumulative incidence of fungal infections within 12 months was not different with nebulized amphotericin (0.08, CI: 0.04-0.13; I2 = 87%) compared to systemic triazoles (0.07, CI: 0.03-0.11; I2 = 21%) (P = .65). Likewise, duration of prophylaxis did not impact the incidence of fungal infections (short term: 0.11, CI: 0.05-0.17; I2 = 89%; long term: 0.06, CI: 0.03-0.08; I2 = 51%; P = .39). CONCLUSIONS: We have insufficient evidence to support or exclude a benefit of antifungal prophylaxis.
Authors: Andrew J Ullmann; Jeffrey H Lipton; David H Vesole; Pranatharthi Chandrasekar; Amelia Langston; Stefano R Tarantolo; Hildegard Greinix; Wellington Morais de Azevedo; Vijay Reddy; Navdeep Boparai; Lisa Pedicone; Hernando Patino; Simon Durrant Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Claire A Aguilar; Bassem Hamandi; Christine Fegbeutel; Fernand P Silveira; Eric A Verschuuren; Pietat Ussetti; Peter V Chin-Hong; Amparo Sole; C Holmes-Liew; Eliane M Billaud; Paolo A Grossi; Oriol Manuel; Deborah J Levine; Richard G Barbers; Denis Hadjiliadis; Lianne G Singer; Shahid Husain Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Dimitra Mitsani; M Hong Nguyen; Ryan K Shields; Yoshiya Toyoda; Eun J Kwak; Fernanda P Silveira; Joseph M Pilewski; Maria M Crespo; Christian Bermudez; Jay K Bhama; Cornelius J Clancy Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: J Cadena; D J Levine; L F Angel; P R Maxwell; R Brady; J F Sanchez; J E Michalek; S M Levine; M I Restrepo Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: J M Borro; A Solé; M de la Torre; A Pastor; R Fernandez; A Saura; M Delgado; E Monte; D Gonzalez Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Richard H Drew; Elizabeth Dodds Ashley; Daniel K Benjamin; R Duane Davis; Scott M Palmer; John R Perfect Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sophia Koo; David W Kubiak; Nicolas C Issa; Amanda Dietzek; Steve Boukedes; Phillip C Camp; Hilary J Goldberg; Lindsey R Baden; Anne L Fuhlbrigge; Francisco M Marty Journal: Transplantation Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Kelly M Pennington; Hayley J Dykhoff; Xiaoxi Yao; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Nilay D Shah; Steve G Peters; Jason N Barreto; Raymund R Razonable; Cassie C Kennedy Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-03