Universal Prophylaxis Versus Pre-emptive Therapy With Posaconazole Post-Lung Transplant

Overview

This trial will examine 2 ways of using the antifungal posaconazole to prevent invasive fungal disease and the precipitation of chronic rejection post lung transplantation.

Lung transplantation (LT) is an increasingly used treatment for end-stage respiratory disease. However, it is expensive, with hospital costs alone estimated at \>US$500,000/transplant. Fungal infection and chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) are the major complications of LT. They pose the greatest threat to long-term survival and are reported to occur in 12-50% of LT recipients and cause death in 21.7-82% of these. Fungal infections occur in 3 major forms in LT recipients, namely colonisation, trachea-bronchial disease and invasive (or end-organ) disease. Whilst invasive fungal disease (IFD) is associated with the highest mortality, colonisation poses the greatest clinical challenge. It is the most common manifestation, can progress to IFD and can precipitate CLAD. Antifungal prophylaxis is used to minimise the risks associated with colonisation. Two main antifungal prophylaxis strategies are used. Universal prophylaxis (UP) is defined as the administration of antifungal agents to all patients post-LT. Most centres use UP. A systematic review and meta-analysis showed neither Aspergillus colonisation nor invasive aspergillosis (IA) (the commonest fungal infection in LT recipients) were reduced by UP. Yet it caused side-effects in 29.6%. The pre-emptive strategy is defined as the administration of antifungal agents when a fungal pathogen (including in donor specimens) is detected or there is serological evidence of a fungal pathogen in the absence of IFD from a post-LT surveillance bronchoscopy or other clinical investigations (i.e. colonisation).Observational data suggest that a pre-emptive strategy has similar IA incidence rates but fewer adverse drug reactions (ADR) than UP (16.1%). It has been estimated that a pre-emptive strategy can reduce antifungal drug use by 43%. No direct comparison of the efficacy, safety and cost of the two strategies has been performed to date. Thus, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal strategy to reduce the impact of fungal infection in LT recipients. However, before we embark on a definitive phase III RCT powered for clinical outcomes we will perform a pilot feasibility RCT to generate data and answer practical questions to better inform the design of the definitive phase III RCT powered for clinical outcomes.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (3)

Outcomes

Central Contacts