Echinocandin use in lung transplant recipients. Issue 12 (9th December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Al Jishi, Yamama; Rotstein, Coleman; Kumar, Deepali; Humar, Atul; Singer, Lianne G.; Keshavjee, Shaf; Husain, Shahid
• Is Part Of: Clinical transplantation. Volume 32:Issue 12(2018)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2018-12-09
• Subjects: antifungal -- echinocandins -- fungal infection -- lung transplantation; Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Periodicals; 617.95
• DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13437
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0902-0063

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). However, data outlining use of echinocandins in prophylaxis and therapy of LTRs are limited. Method: A single‐center retrospective cohort study on all LTRs from January‐2010 to December‐2016. Participants were screened for antifungal use to assess rate, tolerability, and clinical outcome of echinocandin use in LTRs, during the first 6 weeks of posttransplant. Results: A total of 777 lung transplants were reviewed in 763 LTRs. Antifungals were administered to 268 (35%) of LTRs. Reasons included preemptive antifungal therapy (55% [149/268]), targeted antifungal prophylaxis (34% [92/268]), and definitive IFI therapy (10% [27/268]). Azoles were first‐line agents in 80% (215/268) of LTRs, caspofungin in 11% (30/268), micafungin in 6.7% (18/268), amphotericin B in 1.5% (4/268), and anidulafungin in 0.4% (1/268]). LTRs were started on echinocandins due to abnormal liver enzymes in 91% (46/49). Overall, 23% (50/215) of LTR's were switched off azoles. Of these, 54% (27/50) were switched to echinocandins. Switch from azoles to echinocandin was undertaken due to abnormal liver enzymes in 63% (17/27). No patients receiving first‐line echinocandins were switched to other therapies due to adverse events. Conclusions: Our data suggest that echinocandins are utilized in approximately 18.3% of lung transplant recipients. They are the preferred second‐line agents due to a lower adverse‐effect profile compared to the azoles.