4.6 Article

Antifungal management practices and evolution of infection in organ transplant recipients with Cryptococcus neoformans infection

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 80, 期 8, 页码 1033-1039

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000173774.74388.49

关键词

Cryptococcus; fungal infection; transplant

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI05 4719-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Therapeutic practices for Cryptococcus neoformans infection in transplant recipients vary, particularly with regards to antifungal agent employed, and duration of therapy. The risk of relapse and time to recurrence is not known. We assessed antifungal treatment practices for cryptococcosis in a cohort of prospectively followed organ transplant recipients. Methods. The patients comprised 83 transplant recipients with cryptococcosis followed for a median of 2.1 and up to 5.2 years. Results. Patients with central nervous system infection (69% vs. 16%, P = 0.00001), disseminated infection (82.7% vs. 20%, P = 0.00001), and fungemia (29% vs. 8%, P = 0.046) were more likely to receive regimens containing amphotericin B than fluconazole as primary therapy. The use of fluconazole, on the other hand, was more likely for infection limited to the lungs (64% vs. 14%, P = 0.00002). Survival at 6 months tended to be lower in patients whose CSF cultures at 2 weeks were positive compared to those whose CSF cultures were negative (50% vs. 91%, P = 0.06). Maintenance therapy was employed in 68% (54/79) of the patients who survived > 3 weeks. The median duration of maintenance therapy was 183 days; 55% received maintenance for >= 6 months and 25% for > 1 year. Relapse was documented in 1.3% (1/79) of the patients. Conclusions. A majority of the organ transplant recipients with cryptococcosis receive maintenance antifungal therapy for 6 months with low risk of relapse. These data can assist in trials to assess the optimal therapeutic approach and duration of therapy for cryptococcosis in transplant recipients.

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

4.6
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