Antifungal prophylaxis in lung transplantation-a world-wide survey

Chin Neoh, Gregory Snell, Anastase Kotsimbos, Bronwyn Levvey, C Orla Morrissey, Monica Slavin, Kay Stewart, David Kong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

126 Citations (Scopus)


While variations in antifungal prophylaxis have been previously reported in lung transplant (LTx) recipients, recent clinical practice is unknown. Our aim was to determine current antifungal prophylactic practice in LTx centers world-wide. One nominated LTx clinician from each active center was invited by e-mail to participate in a web-based survey between September 2009 and January 2010. Fifty-seven percent (58/102) responded. The majority of responses were from medical directors of LTx centers (72.4 ), and from the United States (44.8 ). Within the first 6 months post-LTx, most centers (58.6 ) employed universal prophylaxis, with 97.1 targeting Aspergillus species. Voriconazole alone, and in combination with inhaled amphotericin B (AmB), were the preferred first-line agents. Intolerance to side effects of voriconazole (69.2 ) was the main reason for switching to alternatives. Beyond 6 months post-LTx, most (51.8 ) did not employ antifungal prophylaxis. Fifteen centers (26.0 ) conducted routine antifungal therapeutic drug monitoring during prophylactic period. There are differences in strategies employed between U.S. and European centers. Most respondents indicated a need for antifungal prophylactic guidelines. In comparison to earlier findings, there was a major shift toward prophylaxis with voriconazole and an increased use of echinocandins, posaconazole and inhaled lipid formulation AmB.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)361 - 366
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Transplantation
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Cite this