Anti-Aspergillus Prophylaxis in Lung Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- First Online:
- 686 Downloads
Aspergillus is the most common cause of invasive fungal infection in lung transplant recipients. Most transplant centers employ routine antifungal prophylaxis to prevent the development of invasive aspergillosis (IA). We identified 22 studies from the literature to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, in order to assess the development of IA and Aspergillus colonization with and without antifungal prophylaxis. Similarly, differences in the toxicities of different formulations of amphotericin-B and azoles were analyzed. Nineteen of 235 (8.1 %) and 28 of 196 (14.3 %) developed IA in the universal prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis arms, respectively (RR: 0.36, CI: 0.05–2.62). We did not find a significant reduction in IA or Aspergillus colonization with universal anti-aspergillus prophylaxis. There was no difference in the adverse events of inhaled amphotericin-B deoxycholate and lipid formulations of inhaled amphotericin-B. However, voriconazole was more hepatotoxic than itraconazole. These results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity of the studies. A multicenter randomized controlled trial is warranted to assess the efficacy of anti-aspergillus prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients.
KeywordsAspergillus Prophylaxis Lung transplant Antimold Antifungal Mold Fungal
- 1.http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov. Accessed September 2013.
- 3.Neofytos D, Fishman JA, Horn D, Anaissie E, Chang CH, Olyaei A et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis 2010.Google Scholar
- 6.Weigt SS, Elashoff RM, Huang C, Ardehali A, Gregson AL, Kubak B et al. Aspergillus Colonization of the Lung Allograft Is a Risk Factor for Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome. Am J Transplant 2009.Google Scholar
- 12.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Accessed August 2013.Google Scholar
- 13.Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen. The Cochrane Collaboration 2012.Google Scholar
- 17.De PB, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, Stevens DA, Edwards JE, Calandra T, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European organization for research and treatment of Cancer/Invasive fungal infections cooperative group and the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases mycoses study group (EORTC/MSG) consensus group. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(12):1813–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Calvo V, Borro JM, Morales P, Morcillo A, Vicente R, Tarrazona V, et al. Antifungal prophylaxis during the early postoperative period of lung transplantation. Valencia Lung Transplant Group Chest. 1999;115(5):1301–4.Google Scholar
- 25.Lowry CM, Marty FM, Vargas SO, Lee JT, Fiumara K, Deykin A, et al. Safety of aerosolized liposomal versus deoxycholate amphotericin B formulations for prevention of invasive fungal infections following lung transplantation: a retrospective study. Transpl Infect Dis. 2007;9(2):121–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Mitsani D, Nguyen MH, Shields RK, Toyoda Y, Kwak EJ, Silveira FP, et al. Prospective, observational study of voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring among lung transplant recipients receiving prophylaxis: factors impacting levels of and associations between serum troughs, efficacy, and toxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2371–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Mattner F, Chaberny IF, Weissbrodt H, Fischer S, Gastmeier P, Haubitz B et al. [Surveillance of invasive mold infections in lung transplant recipients: effect of antimycotic prophylaxis with itraconazole and voriconazole]. Mycoses 2005; 48 Suppl 1:51-5.:51-55.Google Scholar