Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society · 2020
Antifungal prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pennington Kelly M, Baqir Misbah, Erwin Patricia J, Razonable Raymund R, Murad Mohammad Hassan, Kennedy Cassie C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding optimal strategy for antifungal prophylaxis following lung transplant.
OBJECTIVE: To review data regarding antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal infections.
STUDY SELECTION/APPRAISAL: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for eligible articles through December 10, 2019. Observational or controlled trials published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to the prevention of fungal infections in adult lung recipients were reviewed independently by two reviewers for inclusion.
METHODS: Of 1702 articles screened, 24 were included. Data were pooled using random effects model to evaluate for the primary outcome of fungal infection. Studies were stratified by prophylactic strategy, medication, and duration (short term < 6 months and long term ≥ 6 months).
RESULTS: We found no difference in the odds of fungal infection with universal prophylaxis (49/101) compared to no prophylaxis (36/93) (OR 0.76, CI: 0.03-17.98; I2 = 93%) and preemptive therapy (25/195) compared to universal prophylaxis (35/222) (OR 0.91, CI: 0.06-13.80; I2 = 93%). The cumulative incidence of fungal infections within 12 months was not different with nebulized amphotericin (0.08, CI: 0.04-0.13; I2 = 87%) compared to systemic triazoles (0.07, CI: 0.03-0.11; I2 = 21%) (P = .65). Likewise, duration of prophylaxis did not impact the incidence of fungal infections (short term: 0.11, CI: 0.05-0.17; I2 = 89%; long term: 0.06, CI: 0.03-0.08; I2 = 51%; P = .39).
CONCLUSIONS: We have insufficient evidence to support or exclude a benefit of antifungal prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVE: To review data regarding antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal infections.
STUDY SELECTION/APPRAISAL: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for eligible articles through December 10, 2019. Observational or controlled trials published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to the prevention of fungal infections in adult lung recipients were reviewed independently by two reviewers for inclusion.
METHODS: Of 1702 articles screened, 24 were included. Data were pooled using random effects model to evaluate for the primary outcome of fungal infection. Studies were stratified by prophylactic strategy, medication, and duration (short term < 6 months and long term ≥ 6 months).
RESULTS: We found no difference in the odds of fungal infection with universal prophylaxis (49/101) compared to no prophylaxis (36/93) (OR 0.76, CI: 0.03-17.98; I2 = 93%) and preemptive therapy (25/195) compared to universal prophylaxis (35/222) (OR 0.91, CI: 0.06-13.80; I2 = 93%). The cumulative incidence of fungal infections within 12 months was not different with nebulized amphotericin (0.08, CI: 0.04-0.13; I2 = 87%) compared to systemic triazoles (0.07, CI: 0.03-0.11; I2 = 21%) (P = .65). Likewise, duration of prophylaxis did not impact the incidence of fungal infections (short term: 0.11, CI: 0.05-0.17; I2 = 89%; long term: 0.06, CI: 0.03-0.08; I2 = 51%; P = .39).
CONCLUSIONS: We have insufficient evidence to support or exclude a benefit of antifungal prophylaxis.