View Item 

Show simple item record

Randomized, Double‐Blind Trial of Anidulafungin Versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in High‐Risk Liver Transplant Recipients

dc.contributor.authorWinston, D.J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLimaye, A.P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPelletier, S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSafdar, N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMorris, M.I.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMeneses, K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBusuttil, R.W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSingh, N.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-09T16:53:34Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-12-09T16:53:34Z
dc.date.issued2014-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationWinston, D.J.; Limaye, A.P.; Pelletier, S.; Safdar, N.; Morris, M.I.; Meneses, K.; Busuttil, R.W.; Singh, N. (2014). "Randomized, Double‐Blind Trial of Anidulafungin Versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in High‐Risk Liver Transplant Recipients." American Journal of Transplantation 14(12): 2758-2764.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1600-6135en_US
dc.identifier.issn1600-6143en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/109578
dc.publisherClinical and Laboratory Standards Instituteen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherClinical Research/Practiceen_US
dc.subject.otherInfection and Infectious Agentsen_US
dc.subject.otherInfectious Diseaseen_US
dc.subject.otherFungalen_US
dc.titleRandomized, Double‐Blind Trial of Anidulafungin Versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in High‐Risk Liver Transplant Recipientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109578/1/ajt12963.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ajt.12963en_US
dc.identifier.sourceAmerican Journal of Transplantationen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHellinger WL, Bonatti H, Vao JD, et al. Risk stratification and targeted antifungal prophylaxis for prevention of aspergillosis and other invasive mold infections after liver transplantation. Liver Transplant 2005; 11: 656 – 662.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSun HY, Cacciarelli TV, Singh N. Micafungin versus amphotericin B lipid complex for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in high‐risk liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2013; 96: 573 – 578.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVazquez JA, Sobel JD, Anidulafungin: A novel echinocandin. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 2: 215 – 222.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCollins LA, Samore MH, Roberts MS, et al. Risk factors for invasive fungal infections complicating orthotopic liver transplantation. J Infect Dis 1994; 170: 644 – 652.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePatel R, Portela D, Badley AD, et al. Risk factors of invasive Candida and non‐Candida fungal infections after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1996; 62: 926 – 934.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFortun J, Martin‐Davila P, Moreno S, et al. Risk factors for invasive aspergillosis in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2002; 8: 1065 – 1070.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSingh N, Avery RK, Munoz P, et al. Trends in risk profiles for and mortality associated with invasive aspergillosis among liver transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36: 46 – 52.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSun HY, Cacciarelli TV, Singh N. Identifying a targeted population at high risk for infections after liver transplantation in the MELD era. Clin Transplant 2011; 25: 420 – 425.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaliba F, Delvart V, Ichai P, et al. Fungal infections after liver transplantation: Outcomes and risk factors revisited in the MELD era. Clin Transplant 2013; 27: E454 – E461.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLichtenstern C, Hochreiter M, Zehnter VD, et al. Pretransplant model for end stage liver disease score predicts posttransplant incidence of fungal infections after liver transplantation. Mycoses 2013; 56: 350 – 357.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDe Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group, (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1813 – 1821.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard—third edition. Document M27‐A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi. Approved standard—second edition. Document M38‐A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSingh N, Paterson DL, Gayowski J, Wagener MM, Marino IR. Preemptive prophylaxis with a lipid preparation of amphotericin B for invasive fungal infections in liver transplant recipients requiring renal replacement therapy. Transplantation 2001; 71: 910 – 913.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFortun J, Martin‐Davila P, Montejo M, et al. Prevention of invasive fungal infections in liver transplant recipients: The role of prophylaxis with lipid formulations of amphotericin B in high‐risk patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 813 – 819.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Burik JH, Ratanatharathorn V, Stepan DE, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 1407 – 1416.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHuang X, Chen H, Han M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, open‐label study comparing the efficacy of micafungin versus itraconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 1509 – 1516.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMattiuzzi GN, Alvarado G, Giles FJ, et al. Open‐label randomized comparison of itraconazole versus caspofungin for prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 143 – 147.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgopian VG, Petrowsky H, Kaldas FM, et al. The evolution of liver transplantation during 3 decades. Analysis of 5347 consecutive liver transplants at a single center. Ann Surg 2013; 258: 409 – 421.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStata, Version 13.1, College Station, TX.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReed A, Hemdon JB, Ersoz N, et al. Effect of prophylaxis on fungal infection and costs for high‐risk liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2007; 13: 1743 – 1750.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWingard JR, Merz WG, Rinaldi MG, Johnson TR, Karp JE, Saral R. Increase in Candida krusei infections among patients with bone marrow transplantation and neutropenia treated prophylactically with fluconazole. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1274 – 1277.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWingard JR, Merz WG, Rinaldi MG, Miller CB, Karp JE, Saral R. Association of Torulopsis glabrata infections with fluconazole prophylaxis in neutropenic bone marrow transplant recipients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1847 – 1849.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlexander BD, Johnson MD, Pfeiffer CD, et al. Increasing echinocandin resistance in Candida glabrata: Clinical failure correlates with presence of FKS mutations and elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 1724 – 1730.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTomblyn M, Chiller T, Einsele H, et al. Guidelines for preventing infectious complications among hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. A global perspective. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 1143 – 1238.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeofytos D, Fishman JA, Horn D, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Transplant Infect Dis 2010; 12: 220 – 229.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinston DJ, Pakrasi A, Busuttil RW. Prophylactic fluconazole in liver transplant recipients. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 729 – 737.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCruciani M, Mengol C, Malena M, et al. Antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant patients: A systemic review and meta‐analysis. Liver Transplant 2006; 12: 850 – 858.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePappas PG, Silveria FP. AST infectious diseases community of practice. Candida in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009; 9 (Suppl 4): S173 – S179.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes P, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48: 503 – 535.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSingh N, Wagener MM, Cacciarelli Levitsky J. Antifungal management practices in liver transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 426 – 431.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteinbach W, Singh N, Miller JL, et al. In vitro interactions between antifungal and immunosuppressants against Aspergillus fumigatus isolates from transplant and nontransplant patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 4922 – 4925.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFortun J, Martin‐Davila P, Moreno S, et al. Prophylaxis with caspofungin for invasive fungal infections in high‐risk liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2009; 87: 424 – 435.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKishino S, Ohno K, Shimanura T, Furukawa H, Todo S. Optimal prophylactic dosage and disposition of micafungin in living donor liver recipients. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 676 – 680.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
ajt12963.pdf
Size:
73.15KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.