Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 361-366Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03375.x
Keywords
Antifungal prophylaxis; lung transplant; survey; voriconazole
Categories
Funding
- Gilead-Australia
- Gilead-New Zealand
- University of Technology MARA
- Gilead Sciences
- Pfizer
- Merck
- Schering-Plough
- Orphan Australia
Ask authors/readers for more resources
While variations in antifungal prophylaxis have been previously reported in lung transplant (LTx) recipients, recent clinical practice is unknown. Our aim was to determine current antifungal prophylactic practice in LTx centers world-wide. One nominated LTx clinician from each active center was invited by e-mail to participate in a web-based survey between September 2009 and January 2010. Fifty-seven percent (58/102) responded. The majority of responses were from medical directors of LTx centers (72.4%), and from the United States (44.8%). Within the first 6 months post-LTx, most centers (58.6%) employed universal prophylaxis, with 97.1% targeting Aspergillus species. Voriconazole alone, and in combination with inhaled amphotericin B (AmB), were the preferred first-line agents. Intolerance to side effects of voriconazole (69.2%) was the main reason for switching to alternatives. Beyond 6 months post-LTx, most (51.8%) did not employ antifungal prophylaxis. Fifteen centers (26.0%) conducted routine antifungal therapeutic drug monitoring during prophylactic period. There are differences in strategies employed between U.S. and European centers. Most respondents indicated a need for antifungal prophylactic guidelines. In comparison to earlier findings, there was a major shift toward prophylaxis with voriconazole and an increased use of echinocandins, posaconazole and inhaled lipid formulation AmB.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available