Table 2.
PJP prophylaxis patterns among patients with new immunosuppressant drug starts, stratified by anchor immunosuppressant.
| Anchor immunossupressant |
Specific drug bundle | N | Yes prophylaxis |
% | No prophylaxis |
% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highest risk | Cyclophosphamide (CYC) | 30 | 23 | 77% | 7 | 23% | |
| CYC alone | 8 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| CYC + high-dose GC | 13 | 9 | 4 | ||||
| CYC + Rituximab | 9 | 9 | 0 | ||||
| Rituximab | 41 | 28 | 68% | 13 | 32% | ||
| Intermediate risk | Rituximab alone | 13 | 11 | 2 | |||
| Rituximab + GC | 23 | 16 | 7 | ||||
| Rituximab + other(s) | 5 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| High-dose glucocorticoids (GC) | 94 | 37 | 39% | 57 | 61% | ||
| High-dose GC alone | 27 | 5 | 22 | ||||
| High-dose GC + MMF | 51 | 21 | 30 | ||||
| High-dose GC + other(s) | 16 | 11 | 5 | ||||
| Lower risk | Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) | 71 | 15 | 21% | 56 | 79% | |
| MMFalone | 19 | 1 | 18 | ||||
| MMF + GC | 48 | 14 | 34 | ||||
| MMF + other(s) | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Azathioprine (AZA) | 33 | 11 | 33% | 22 | 67% | ||
| AZA alone | 6 | 2 | 4 | ||||
| AZA + GC | 27 | 9 | 18 | ||||
| Methotrexate (MTX) | 47 | 10 | 21% | 37 | 79% | ||
| MTX alone | 14 | 1 | 13 | ||||
| MTX + GC | 33 | 9 | 24 | ||||
Anchor immunosuppresant: we created a hierarchy of drugs in order to categorize drug combinations according to risk of drug-conferred risk of PJP in the following order: cyclophosphamide (highest risk), rituximab, high-dose GC, MMF, AZA, and MTX (lowest risk).