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。
タイトル: Comparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation
著者: Umemura, Keisuke
Katada, Yoshiki
Nakagawa, Shunsaku  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
Hira, Daiki  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8344-2469 (unconfirmed)
Yutaka, Yojiro
Tanaka, Satona  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0789-2350 (unconfirmed)
Ohsumi, Akihiro
Nakajima, Daisuke
Date, Hiroshi  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
Nagao, Miki  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8886-6145 (unconfirmed)
Terada, Tomohiro  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
著者名の別形: 梅村, 圭祐
片田, 佳希
中川, 俊作
平, 大樹
豊, 洋次郎
田中, 里奈
大角, 明宏
中島, 大輔
伊達, 洋至
長尾, 美紀
寺田, 智祐
キーワード: Nebulized liposomal amphotericin B
Nebulized amphotericin B deoxycholate
Lung transplantation
Fungal prophylaxis
Pharmacoeconomics
発行日: Aug-2024
出版者: Elsevier BV
誌名: Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
巻: 30
号: 8
開始ページ: 741
終了ページ: 745
抄録: 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.
著作権等: © 2024. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
The 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'.
This 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。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/287857
DOI(出版社版): 10.1016/j.jiac.2024.02.010
PubMed ID: 38354908
出現コレクション:学術雑誌掲載論文等

アイテムの詳細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