Comparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation.
Fungal prophylaxis
Lung transplantation
Nebulized amphotericin B deoxycholate
Nebulized liposomal amphotericin B
Pharmacoeconomics
Journal
Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy
ISSN: 1437-7780
Titre abrégé: J Infect Chemother
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9608375
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2024
12 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
11
12
2023
revised:
01
02
2024
accepted:
09
02
2024
medline:
15
2
2024
pubmed:
15
2
2024
entrez:
14
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Fungal infection after lung transplantation can lead to poor clinical outcome, for which lung transplant recipients require prophylaxis. One of the antifungal agents used after lung transplantation is nebulized amphotericin B (AMB). Nebulized AMB causes adverse events such as dyspnea and airway irritation, and long-term use leads to high economic costs. So far, prophylactic regimens employing AMB deoxycholate (AMB-d) and liposomal AMB (L-AMB) have been developed. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and cost of AMB-d and L-AMB. Patients who underwent lung transplantation at Kyoto University Hospital from January 2021 to May 2023 were included in this study. Thirty-three patients received nebulized AMB-d, whereas 29 received nebulized L-AMB. Both regimens maintained comparable prophylactic efficacy regarding the development of fungal infection in the AMB-d and L-AMB groups (3.0% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.877). Patients treated with nebulized L-AMB experienced fewer respiratory-related adverse reactions than those treated with nebulized AMB-d (6.9% vs. 30.3%, P < 0.05), leading to a longer treatment duration with L-AMB than with AMB-d. Additionally, the daily cost of administering L-AMB was lower than that of administering AMB-d (3609 Japanese yen vs. 1792.3 Japanese yen, P < 0.05). These results suggest that nebulized L-AMB is safer and more cost-effective than nebulized AMB-d, with comparable efficacy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38354908
pii: S1341-321X(24)00045-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2024.02.010
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy, Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, and Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.