Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Hepatol. Nov 27, 2021; 13(11): 1653-1662
Published online Nov 27, 2021. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v13.i11.1653
Published online Nov 27, 2021. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v13.i11.1653
Table 3 Effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant
| Ref. | Trials | Patients | Regimens | Infection reduction | Comments |
| (95%CI) | |||||
| Cruciani et al[25], 2006 | 6 | 698 | AmB vs Pla (1) | Total proven fungal infections RR 0.31 (0.21-0.46), IFI RR 0.33 (0.18-0.59) | Patients receiving prophylaxis had higher number of non-Albicans proven fungal infections. Mostly C. glabrata. |
| Flu vs nonsystemic AF (1) | |||||
| Flu vs Pla (2) | |||||
| Itra vs Pla(1) | |||||
| Amb-Itra vs Flu-itra vs Pla (1) | |||||
| Playford et al[24], 2006 | 7 | 793 | Flu vs Pla (2) | Proven IFI RR 0.39 (0.18-0.85), fungal colonization RR 0.51 (0.41-0.62), fungal colonization with C. glabrata/C. krusei, RR 1.57 (0.76-3.24) | Formulated algorithm in which patients with < 2 RF deemed low risk (4%incidence) for IFI and those with ≥ 2 at high risk (25% incidence) for IFI. |
| Flu vs nonsystemic AF (2) | |||||
| Itra vs Pla (2) | |||||
| AmB vs Pla (1) | |||||
| Evans et al[26], 2014 | 14 | 1633 | Flu vs Pla/nonabs AF (4) | Proven IFI OR 0.37 (0.19-0.72), P = 0.003, Bayesian MTC, AmB vs Pla OR 0.21 (0.05-0.71), Flu vs Pla OR 0.21 (0.06-0.57) | Benefit of AmB is of similar magnitude to that previously described for fluconazole. |
| Itra vs Pla (1) | |||||
| AmB vs Pla (1) | |||||
| 3 arm study with Pla/AmB/Flu (1) | |||||
| Flu vs AmB (3) | |||||
| Liposomal + Flu vs standard AmB + Flu | |||||
| Itra vs Flu (2) | |||||
| Micafungin vs standard care (1) | |||||
| Clo vs Nys (1) | |||||
- Citation: Khalid M, Neupane R, Anjum H, Surani S. Fungal infections following liver transplantation. World J Hepatol 2021; 13(11): 1653-1662
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v13/i11/1653.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v13.i11.1653