4.4 Article

Liposomal amphotericin B prophylaxis of invasive mold infections in children post allogeneic stem cell transplantation

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 325-330

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21239

关键词

AlloSCT; liposomal amphotericin B; mold prophylaxis; pediatrics

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL07968] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR49330] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [5K12HD43389-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Invasive mold infections (IMI) are a leading cause of infectious mortality in allogeneic stem cell transplant AlloSCT) recipients. Fluconazole, the current standard for fungal prophylaxis, is ineffective against molds. We initiated a pilot study to determine the safety and activity of prophylactic liposomal amphotericin B (AMB) in preventing IMI in pediatric and adolescent AlloSCT recipients during the first 100 days. Procedure. Fifty-one patients (57 AlloSCT) were given AMB (3 mg/kg/day) intravenously, day 0-100. Median age 6 years, 32 males, 19 females. Donors: 33 unrelated and 2 related cord blood, 13 related and 1 unrelated peripheral blood stern cell and 8 related bone marrow (BM); 30 received myeloablative and 27 reduced intensity conditioning. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis comprised tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Results. Median follow-up is 557 days. AMB was generally well tolerated. The probability of developing >= grade II acute GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD was 45% and 7%, respectively. Estimated 1-year OS is 62.4% for all patients with 78.8% and 26.7% for average-risk and poor-risk, respectively. The incidence of IMI was 0%. Conclusions. These results suggest prophylactic AMB is tolerable and may prevent IMI, especially Aspergillus, during the first 100 days post AlloSCT in pediatric and adolescent patients. A randomized study is needed to determine the efficacy of this approach. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;50:325330. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据