Comparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation
- PMID: 38354908
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2024.02.010
Comparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation
Abstract
Introduction: 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 and methods: 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.
Results: 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).
Discussion: These results suggest that nebulized L-AMB is safer and more cost-effective than nebulized AMB-d, with comparable efficacy.
Keywords: Fungal prophylaxis; Lung transplantation; Nebulized amphotericin B deoxycholate; Nebulized liposomal amphotericin B; Pharmacoeconomics.
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.
Similar articles
-
Safety of aerosolized liposomal versus deoxycholate amphotericin B formulations for prevention of invasive fungal infections following lung transplantation: a retrospective study.Transpl Infect Dis. 2007 Jun;9(2):121-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2007.00209.x. Transpl Infect Dis. 2007. PMID: 17461997
-
Evaluating real-life clinical and economical burden of amphotericin-B deoxycholate adverse reactions.Int J Clin Pharm. 2012 Aug;34(4):611-7. doi: 10.1007/s11096-012-9654-y. Epub 2012 Jun 7. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012. PMID: 22674178
-
Addition of aerosolized deoxycholate amphotericin B to systemic prophylaxis to prevent airways invasive fungal infections in allogeneic hematopoietic SCT: a single-center retrospective study.Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011 Jan;46(1):132-6. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.76. Epub 2010 Apr 12. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011. PMID: 20383205
-
Amphotericin B formulations: a comparative review of efficacy and toxicity.Drugs. 2013 Jun;73(9):919-34. doi: 10.1007/s40265-013-0069-4. Drugs. 2013. PMID: 23729001 Review.
-
Liposomal amphotericin B: a review of its use as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenia and in the treatment of invasive fungal infections.Drugs. 2009;69(3):361-92. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200969030-00010. Drugs. 2009. PMID: 19275278 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical