Observational studyBMC pharmacology & toxicology2026
Liposomal amphotericin B as an antifungal prophylaxis in bilateral lung transplantation: a safety analysis.
Observational study in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung transplantation (LT) is the definitive treatment for end-stage chronic respiratory failure. Despite improvements in surgical and perioperative care, fungal infections remain a major complication in LT recipients, and antifungal prophylaxis with liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) is commonly used. However, evidence on the safety of L-AmB administration in LT recipients remains limited. This retrospective observational study aimed to assess the profile of renal, hepatic and hematologic safety, and the incidence of hypersensitivity adverse events following prophylactic L-AmB use in LT recipients.
methodsA retrospective, single-center observational study of adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent their first bilateral LT at the University Hospital of Padua (Italy), between January 2020 and March 2025. All patients received intravenous L-AmB (3 mg/kg/day for 5 days) as postoperative antifungal prophylaxis. Adverse effects were assessed based on acute kidney injury (AKI), liver toxicity, hematotoxicity, and infusion reactions. Laboratory values were collected at baseline, on days 1, 2, 3, 7, and 14 post-L-AmB initiation.
results189 LT recipients were screened and 140 enrolled. Concerning safety profile, AKI occurred in 55 (39%) patients, with serum creatinine peaking at 48 h (p = 0.025), as compared to baseline. Mild transaminase elevations occurred in 86% of patients within the first 48 h, and bilirubin increased in 10%, with no episodes of acute liver failure. Anemia (85%) and transient thrombocytopenia (9%) were observed. Hypokalemia was found in 28%. Renal replacement therapy was needed in 2%. No infusion-related or allergic reactions to L-AmB were observed. According to the institutional fungal surveillance protocol, no proven, probable, or possible invasive fungal infections were documented during the observation period. However, the present study was not designed to assess the prophylactic efficacy of L-AmB.
conclusionsIn this cohort of bilateral LT recipients receiving standardized L-AmB prophylaxis, no discontinuation, dose adjustment, infusion reaction, or proven fungal infection was documented. Renal, hepatic, hematologic, and electrolyte abnormalities were frequent; but cannot be specifically attributed to L-AmB in the absence of a comparator group, given the multifactorial pathophysiology of the early post-transplant period. These findings underscore the importance of vigilant monitoring of organ function during L-AmB administration in this vulnerable population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.