1. Comparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation.
- Author
-
Umemura K, Katada Y, Nakagawa S, Hira D, Yutaka Y, Tanaka S, Ohsumi A, Nakajima D, Date H, Nagao M, and Terada T
- Subjects
- Humans, Male, Female, Middle Aged, Aged, Adult, Administration, Inhalation, Retrospective Studies, Japan, Amphotericin B administration & dosage, Amphotericin B economics, Amphotericin B adverse effects, Amphotericin B therapeutic use, Antifungal Agents economics, Antifungal Agents administration & dosage, Antifungal Agents therapeutic use, Antifungal Agents adverse effects, Lung Transplantation adverse effects, Lung Transplantation economics, Deoxycholic Acid administration & dosage, Deoxycholic Acid adverse effects, Deoxycholic Acid economics, Deoxycholic Acid therapeutic use, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Drug Combinations, Mycoses prevention & control, Mycoses economics, Nebulizers and Vaporizers
- 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., (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.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF