4.6 Review

Incidence of Pneumocystis Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients without Human Immunodeficiency Virus on Intravenous Pentamidine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof9040406

Keywords

intravenous pentamidine; Pneumocystis pneumonia; prophylaxis; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; immunocompromised host

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intravenous pentamidine (IVP) as a prophylaxis agent for Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) in non-HIV immunocompromised patients. The results showed that monthly IVP can be an appropriate second-line option for PCP prophylaxis in certain non-HIV immunocompromised hosts, especially those with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. It is feasible to use IVP as an alternative to oral TMP-SMX for PCP prophylaxis when enteral medication administration is not possible.
Background: Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) is a first-line Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis agent, but monthly intravenous pentamidine (IVP) is used in immunocompromised hosts without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection because IVP is not associated with cytopenia and delayed engraftment. Method: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate breakthrough PCP incidence and adverse reactions in HIV-uninfected immunocompromised patients receiving IVP. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception until 15 December 2022. Results: The pooled incidence of breakthrough PCP with IVP was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3-1.4%, 16 studies, 3025 patients) and was similar when used as first-line prophylaxis (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4%, 7 studies, 752 patients). The pooled incidence of adverse reactions was 11.3% (95% CI, 6.7-18.6%, 14 studies, 2068 patients). The pooled adverse event-related discontinuation was 3.7% (95% CI, 1.8-7.3%, 11 studies, 1802 patients), but was lower in patients receiving IVP monthly (2.0%; 95% CI 0.7-5.7%, 7 studies, 1182 patients). Conclusion: Monthly IVP is an appropriate second-line agent for PCP prophylaxis in certain non-HIV immunocompromised hosts, especially in patients with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Using IVP for PCP prophylaxis as an alternative to oral TMP-SMX while patients are unable to tolerate enteral medication administration is feasible.

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