Echinocandin use in lung transplant recipients

Antifungal Prophylaxis After Lung Transplantation: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation is an important treatment option for various end-stage lung diseases. However, survival remains limited due to graft rejection and infections. Despite that fungal infections are frequent and carry a bad prognosis, there is currently no consensus on efficacy, optimal drug, route, or duration of antifungal prophylaxis. This narrative review summarizes current strategies for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation.

METHODS

English language articles in Embase, Pubmed, UptoDate, and bibliographies were used to assess the efficacy and safety of available antifungal agents for prophylaxis in adult lung transplant recipients.

RESULTS

Overall, there are limited high-quality data. Universal prophylaxis is more widely used and may be preferable over targeted prophylaxis. Both formulations of inhaled amphotericin B and systemic azoles are effective at reducing fungal infection rates, yet with their own specific advantages and disadvantages. The benefit of combination regimens has yet to be proven. Considering the post-transplant timing of the onset of fungal infections, postoperative prophylaxis during the first postoperative months seems indicated for most patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on existing literature, universal antifungal prophylaxis with inhaled amphotericin B and systemic voriconazole for at least 3-6 mo after lung transplantation may be advisable, with a slight preference for amphotericin B because of its better safety profile.

Perioperative anidulafungin combined with triazole prophylaxis for the prevention of early invasive candidiasis in lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Invasive candidiasis (IC) is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality among lung transplant recipients (LTRs). Postoperative factors include prolonged hospital stay, central lines, delayed chest closure, and dehiscence increase IC risk. Correspondingly, current guidelines propose targeted IC coverage early posttransplant with fluconazole or an echinocandin.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis was performed on LTRs from January 2016 to January 2020 and evaluated effectiveness of a recent protocol utilizing perioperative anidulafungin for early IC prevention in addition to long-term triazole antifungal prophylaxis. Prior to this protocol, patients were primarily established on itraconazole prophylaxis alone. The primary endpoint was proven or probable IC within 90 days after transplant. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to assess risk factors for invasive fungal infection (IFI).

RESULTS

Among 144 LTRs, there was a numerically lower incidence of IC in the protocol group, although not statistically significant (6% vs. 13%, p = 0.16). Incidence of proven or probable IFI was 7.5% in the protocol cohort and 19.5% in the pre-protocol cohort (p = 0.038). In multivariable analysis, when controlling for lung allocation score (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), donor perioperative culture with fungal growth (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.02-8.92), and dehiscence (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.14-10.85), protocol cohort was not significantly associated with IFI (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating combination triazole/echinocandin use in the early post-lung transplant period. These findings demonstrate that in-hospital anidulafungin offers unclear benefit for early IC prevention when used in combination with triazole prophylaxis.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Caspofungin among Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients during the Postoperative Period of Lung Transplantation

Little is known about the influence of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of caspofungin. The aim of this study was to describe population PK of caspofungin in patients with and without ECMO during the postoperative period of lung transplantation (LTx) and to investigate covariates influencing caspofungin PK. We compared ECMO patients with non-ECMO patients, and patients before and after ECMO weaning as self-controls, to analyzed changes in caspofungin PK. Eight serial blood samples were collected from each patient for PK analysis. The population PK of caspofungin was described using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Twelve ECMO and 7 non-ECMO lung transplant recipients were enrolled in this study. None of the patients received renal replacement therapy during any part of the study period. The PK of caspofungin was best described by a two-compartment model. There were no significant differences in the PK parameters and concentrations of caspofungin among the ECMO, non-ECMO, and self-control group. In the final covariate model, we found that there was a significant association between the male gender and increased distribution volume, that a higher sequential organ failure assessment score was related to an increase in intercompartmental clearance, and that a longer operative time was related to an increase in clearance and the volume of distribution. ECMO did not have a significant impact on the PK of caspofungin in patients after LTx. Some factors were identified as statistically significant covariates related to the PK of caspofungin; however, their impact on clinical practice of caspofungin needs to be investigated further in more studies. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT03766282.).