4.6 Article

Micafungin Versus Amphotericin B Lipid Complex for the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections in High-Risk Liver Transplant Recipients

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 96, Issue 6, Pages 573-578

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31829d674f

Keywords

Fungal infections; Liver transplant; Antifungal prophylaxis

Funding

  1. Astellas
  2. Pfizer, Inc.
  3. Astellas Pharma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Limited data exist regarding echinocandins as antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. Methods. The efficacy and safety of targeted prophylaxis with micafungin or amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) was assessed in a sequential cohort of high-risk patients (posttransplantation dialysis, retransplantation, or reoperation) and compared with those without high risk who did not receive prophylaxis. Outcomes were assessed at 90 days. Results. Micafungin versus ABLC recipients were older (P=0.0065) and more likely to have hepatocellular carcinoma (P=0.025). High-risks, that is, dialysis (55.6% vs. 79.2%), retransplantation (5.6% vs. 12.5%), and reoperation (38.9% vs. 20.8%) did not differ between the two groups. Invasive fungal infections developed in 11.1% (2 of 18) of micafungin recipients, 8.3% (2 of 24) of ABLC recipients, and 3% (7 of 234) of patients without high risks (P=0.12). In nondialyzed patients, ABLC versus micafungin recipients had significantly higher serum creatinine on day 14 (P=0.04). However, renal and hepatic function, rejection, graft loss, and mortality did not differ for the two groups on day 90. Conclusions. Targeted prophylaxis with micafungin or ABLC decreased the risk of mycoses in high-risk recipients compared with that in low-risk recipients. Compared with ABLC, however, micafungin appeared to be associated with lower early-renal dysfunction and no additional risk of hepatic dysfunction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available