Antifungal Prophylaxis After Lung Transplantation: Where Are We Now?

Novel antifungals and treatment approaches to tackle resistance and improve outcomes of invasive fungal disease

SUMMARYFungal infections are on the rise, driven by a growing population at risk and climate change. Currently available antifungals include only five classes, and their utility and efficacy in antifungal treatment are limited by one or more of innate or acquired resistance in some fungi, poor penetration into "sequestered" sites, and agent-specific side effect which require frequent patient reassessment and monitoring. Agents with novel mechanisms, favorable pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles including good oral bioavailability, and fungicidal mechanism(s) are urgently needed. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of novel antifungal agents, with both improved known mechanisms of actions and new antifungal classes, currently in clinical development for treating invasive yeast, mold (filamentous fungi), Pneumocystis jirovecii infections, and dimorphic fungi (endemic mycoses). We further focus on inhaled antifungals and the role of immunotherapy in tackling fungal infections, and the specific PK/pharmacodynamic profiles, tissue distributions as well as drug-drug interactions of novel antifungals. Finally, we review antifungal resistance mechanisms, the role of use of antifungal pesticides in agriculture as drivers of drug resistance, and detail detection methods for antifungal resistance.

Comparison of the safety and cost-effectiveness of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation

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.

Invasive Aspergillosis among Lung Transplant Recipients during Time Periods with Universal and Targeted Antifungal Prophylaxis-A Nationwide Cohort Study

The optimal prevention strategy for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in lung transplant recipients (LTXr) is unknown. In 2016, the Danish guidelines were changed from universal to targeted IA prophylaxis. Previously, we found higher rates of adverse events in the universal prophylaxis period. In a Danish nationwide study including LTXr, for 2010-2019, we compared IA rates in time periods with universal vs. targeted prophylaxis and during person-time with vs. person-time without antifungal prophylaxis. IA hazard rates were analyzed in multivariable Cox models with adjustment for time after LTX. Among 295 LTXr, antifungal prophylaxis was initiated in 183/193 and 6/102 during the universal and targeted period, respectively. During the universal period, 62% discontinued prophylaxis prematurely. The median time on prophylaxis was 37 days (IQR 11-84). IA was diagnosed in 27/193 (14%) vs. 15/102 (15%) LTXr in the universal vs. targeted period, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.94 (95% CI 0.49-1.82). The aHR of IA during person-time with vs. person-time without antifungal prophylaxis was 0.36 (95% CI 0.12-1.02). No difference in IA was found during periods with universal vs. targeted prophylaxis. Prophylaxis was protective of IA when taken. Targeted prophylaxis may be preferred over universal due to comparable IA rates and lower rates of adverse events.

Bring it on: Top five antimicrobial stewardship challenges in transplant infectious diseases and practical strategies to address them

Antimicrobial therapies are essential tools for transplant recipients who are at high risk for infectious complications. However, judicious use of antimicrobials is critical to preventing the development of antimicrobial resistance. Treatment of multidrug-resistant organisms is challenging and potentially leads to therapies with higher toxicities, intravenous access, and intensive drug monitoring for interactions. Antimicrobial stewardship programs are crucial in the prevention of antimicrobial resistance, though balancing these strategies with the need for early and frequent antibiotic therapy in these immunocompromised patients can be challenging. In this review, we summarize 5 frequently encountered transplant infectious disease stewardship challenges, and we suggest strategies to improve practices for each clinical syndrome. These 5 challenging areas are: asymptomatic bacteriuria in kidney transplant recipients, febrile neutropenia in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, antifungal prophylaxis in liver and lung transplantation, treatment of left-ventricular assist device infections, and Clostridioides difficile infection in solid-organ and hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients. Common themes contributing to these challenges include limited data specific to transplant patients, shortcomings in diagnostic testing, and uncertainties in pharmacotherapy.

The Prediction and Prognosis of Fungal Infection in Lung Transplant Recipients-A Retrospective Cohort Study in South Korea

(1) Background: Lung transplant recipients (LTRs) are at substantial risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD), although no consensus has been reached on the use of antifungal agents (AFAs) after lung transplantation (LTx). This study aimed to assess the risk factors and prognosis of fungal infection after LTx in a single tertiary center in South Korea. (2) Methods: The study population included all patients who underwent LTx between January 2012 and July 2019 at a tertiary hospital. It was a retrospective cohort study. Culture, bronchoscopy, and laboratory findings were reviewed during episodes of infection. (3) Results: Fungus-positive respiratory samples were predominant in the first 90 days and the overall cumulative incidence of Candida spp. was approximately three times higher than that of Aspergillus spp. In the setting of itraconazole administration for 6 months post-LTx, C. glabrata accounted for 36.5% of all Candida-positive respiratory samples. Underlying connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease, use of AFAs before LTx, a longer length of hospital stay after LTx, and old age were associated with developing a fungal infection after LTx. IFD and fungal infection treatment failure significantly increased overall mortality. Host factors, antifungal drug resistance, and misdiagnosis of non-Aspergillus molds could attribute to the breakthrough fungal infections. (4) Conclusions: Careful bronchoscopy, prompt fungus culture, and appropriate use of antifungal therapies are recommended during the first year after LTx.