ダウンロード数: 0

このアイテムのファイル:
このアイテムは一定期間後に公開されます。
公開日については,アイテム画面の「著作権等」でご確認ください。
完全メタデータレコード
DCフィールド言語
dc.contributor.authorUmemura, Keisukeen
dc.contributor.authorKatada, Yoshikien
dc.contributor.authorNakagawa, Shunsakuen
dc.contributor.authorHira, Daikien
dc.contributor.authorYutaka, Yojiroen
dc.contributor.authorTanaka, Satonaen
dc.contributor.authorOhsumi, Akihiroen
dc.contributor.authorNakajima, Daisukeen
dc.contributor.authorDate, Hiroshien
dc.contributor.authorNagao, Mikien
dc.contributor.authorTerada, Tomohiroen
dc.contributor.alternative梅村, 圭祐ja
dc.contributor.alternative片田, 佳希ja
dc.contributor.alternative中川, 俊作ja
dc.contributor.alternative平, 大樹ja
dc.contributor.alternative豊, 洋次郎ja
dc.contributor.alternative田中, 里奈ja
dc.contributor.alternative大角, 明宏ja
dc.contributor.alternative中島, 大輔ja
dc.contributor.alternative伊達, 洋至ja
dc.contributor.alternative長尾, 美紀ja
dc.contributor.alternative寺田, 智祐ja
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-19T00:29:28Z-
dc.date.available2024-06-19T00:29:28Z-
dc.date.issued2024-08-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2433/287857-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: 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.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherElsevier BVen
dc.rights© 2024. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.en
dc.rightsThe full-text file will be made open to the public on 1 August 2025 in accordance with publisher's 'Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving'.en
dc.rightsThis is not the published version. Please cite only the published version. この論文は出版社版でありません。引用の際には出版社版をご確認ご利用ください。en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjectNebulized liposomal amphotericin Ben
dc.subjectNebulized amphotericin B deoxycholateen
dc.subjectLung transplantationen
dc.subjectFungal prophylaxisen
dc.subjectPharmacoeconomicsen
dc.titleComparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantationen
dc.typejournal article-
dc.type.niitypeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.jtitleJournal of Infection and Chemotherapyen
dc.identifier.volume30-
dc.identifier.issue8-
dc.identifier.spage741-
dc.identifier.epage745-
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.jiac.2024.02.010-
dc.textversionauthor-
dc.identifier.pmid38354908-
dcterms.accessRightsembargoed access-
datacite.date.available2025-08-01-
dc.identifier.pissn1341-321X-
dc.identifier.eissn1437-7780-
出現コレクション:学術雑誌掲載論文等

アイテムの簡略レコードを表示する

Export to RefWorks


出力フォーマット 


このアイテムは次のライセンスが設定されています: クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンス Creative Commons