scholarly journals Randomized Comparison of Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Caspofungin, Liposomal Amphotericin B, and the Combination of Both in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients

2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (10) ◽  
pp. 4143-4149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas H. Groll ◽  
Gerda Silling ◽  
Charlotte Young ◽  
Rainer Schwerdtfeger ◽  
Helmut Ostermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Liposomal Amphotericin ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem

ABSTRACT The combination of liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) and caspofungin (CAS) holds promise to improve the outcome of opportunistic invasive mycoses with poor prognosis. Little is known, however, about the safety and pharmacokinetics of the combination in patients at high risk for these infections. The safety and pharmacokinetics of the combination of LAMB and CAS were investigated in a risk-stratified, randomized, multicenter phase II clinical trial in 55 adult allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell recipients (aHSCT) with granulocytopenia and refractory fever. The patients received either CAS (50 mg/day; day 1, 70 mg), LAMB (3 mg/kg of body weight/day), or the combination of both (CASLAMB) until defervescence and granulocyte recovery. Safety, development of invasive fungal infections, and survival were assessed through day 14 after the end of therapy. Pharmacokinetic sampling and analysis were performed on days 1 and 4. All three regimens were well tolerated. Premature study drug discontinuations due to grade III/IV adverse events occurred in 1/18, 2/20, and 0/17 patients randomized to CAS, LAMB, and CASLAMB, respectively. Adverse events not leading to study drug discontinuation were frequent but similar across cohorts, except for a higher frequency of hypokalemia with CASLAMB (P < 0.05). Drug exposures were similar for patients receiving combination therapy and those randomized to monotherapy. There was no apparent difference in the occurrence of proven/probable invasive fungal infections and survival through day 14 after the end of therapy. CASLAMB combination therapy in immunocompromised aHSCT patients was as safe as monotherapy with CAS or LAMB and had similar plasma pharmacokinetics, lending support to further investigations of the combination in the management of patients with invasive opportunistic mycoses.

scholarly journals Invasive Fungal Infections While on Voriconazole, Liposomal Amphotericin B, or Micafungin for Antifungal Prophylaxis in Pediatric Stem Cell Transplant Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-226
Author(s):  
Annie Bui ◽  
Veronica Nguyen ◽  
Christina Hsu ◽  
Ben Hyde ◽  
Tiffany Simms-Waldrip
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Liposomal Amphotericin ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
Liposomal Amphotericin B ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to report the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients who received voriconazole, liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB), or micafungin for primary antifungal prophylaxis (PAP). METHODS Using data retrospectively collected from institution's electronic records, this study analyzed the incidence of IFIs in pediatric HSCT patients between November 2012 and November 2016. RESULTS A total of 103 patients were screened. Of the 84 patients who met inclusion criteria, 76.2%, 29.8%, and 19% patients received voriconazole, L-AMB, and micafungin, respectively. The incidence of overall IFIs was 2.08 per 1000 prophylaxis days. There were 2 mold infections identified in 2 patients. Among 3 antifungal agents, the rates of IFIs were 2.67 per 1000 prophylaxis days in L-AMB group, 2.08 per 1000 prophylaxis days in micafungin group, and 1.17 per 1000 prophylaxis days in voriconazole group. CONCLUSION Patients who received L-AMB or micafungin had higher rates of IFIs than those who received voriconazole for PAP.

scholarly journals Cost Analysis of the Use of Voriconazole, Posaconazole and Micafungin in the Primary Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants

10.36469/9832 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-161
Author(s):  
Santiago Grau ◽  
Carlos Solano ◽  
Carol García-Vidal ◽  
Isidro Jarque ◽  
Jon A. Barrueta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
Efficacy Rate ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: Compare the cost of the primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFI) with voriconazole, posaconazole, and micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in hospitals of the National Health System (NHS) in Spain. Methods: A cost analysis was made for 100 days and 180 days of prophylaxis and a decision tree model was developed. The efficacy rate of IFI prophylaxis and survival rate with liposomal amphotericin B treatment of prophylaxis failures were obtained from randomized trials and a meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons. The model simulation was interrupted with IFI treatment (prophylaxis failures). The costs of medication and its intravenous administration in the hospital (in the case of micafungin) were considered. Results: In the non-modeled analysis, the savings per patient of prophylaxis with voriconazole ranged from €1,709 to €9,655 compared with posaconazole oral solution, from €1,811 to €9,767 compared with posaconazole gastro-resistant tablets and from €3,376 to €7,713 compared with micafungin. In the modeled analysis, the mean cost per patient of the prophylaxis and treatment of IFIs was €6,987 to €7,619 with voriconazole, €7,749 with posaconazole, and €22,424 with micafungin. Therefore, the savings per patient of prophylaxis with voriconazole was €130 to €3,664 and €11,132 to €30,374 compared with posaconazole and micafungin, respectively. The result remained stable after modification of the number of days of antifungal prophylaxis and the cost of antifungal treatment of failures. Conclusion: Taking into account this model, antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole in recipients of hematopoietic progenitor transplants, compared with posaconazole or micafungin, may represent savings for hospitals in Spain.

scholarly journals Primary or Secondary Prophylaxis with Voriconazole Compared with Posaconazole for Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S75-S75
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W Jansen ◽  
Anupam Pande ◽  
Rizwan Romee ◽  
Steven J Lawrence ◽  
William Powderly
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Invasive fungal infections (IFI) remain a serious complication in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients and are associated with increased costs, morbidity, and mortality. Posaconazole (PCZ) and voriconazole (VCZ) are frequently utilized as antifungal prophylaxis in this population. To date, no direct comparison between PCZ and VCZ exists for the prevention of IFI in adult HSCT patients. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of HSCT patients aged ≥18 years who received ≥28 continuous days of primary (PPPx) or secondary (SPPx) antifungal prophylaxis with either VCZ or PCZ between February 26, 2003 and September 30, 2015 at Barnes-Jewish Hospital was conducted. Patients who received PPPx or SPPx with both VCZ and PCZ were analyzed following intention to treat of the initial agent received. Patients who received both PPPx and SPPx were included once for both PPPx and SPPx. The primary outcome of interest was development of possible, probable, or proven IFI as defined by EORTC/MSG guidelines. In the SPPx patients, development of IFI was confirmed as a distinct event from primary IFI based on manual chart review and radiographic evidence. Results Overall, there were 472 patients included; 402 in the VCZ group and 70 in the PCZ group. At baseline, patients in the PCZ group had more graft vs. host disease (GVHD) prior to prophylaxis (27.1% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.04) and were more likely to be on SPPx (60% vs. 41%, P &lt; 0.01). There were 22 and 1 IFI events in the VCZ and PCZ groups, respectively, which corresponded to a crude incidence rate of 0.345 and 0.077 per 1000 person-days of prophylaxis. Figure 1 displays the Cox proportional hazard model which was completed in the backwards stepwise method accounting for gender, transplant type, GVHD prior to prophylaxis, disease remission, and PPPx or SPPX. The hazard ratio for development of IFI while on prophylaxis between VCZ and PCZ was 5.22 (95% CI: 0.69–39.4; P = 0.11) after controlling for PPPx or SPPx. Conclusion There was not a significant difference between rates of IFI in HSCT patients who received antifungal prophylaxis with VCZ compared with PCZ. Our data trends towards favoring PCZ but is limited by low rates of IFI. Larger, prospective analyses are necessary to confirm our findings. Disclosures W. Powderly, Merck: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research grant. Gilead: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Astellas: Grant Investigator, Research grant

scholarly journals RhizomucorandScedosporiumInfection Post Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplant

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dânia Sofia Marques ◽  
Carlos Pinho Vaz ◽  
Rosa Branca ◽  
Fernando Campilho ◽  
Catarina Lamelas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
Unrelated Donor ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Increased Risk

Hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients are at increased risk of developing invasive fungal infections. This is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. We report a case of a 17-year-old male patient diagnosed with severe idiopathic acquired aplastic anemia who developed fungal pneumonitis due toRhizomucor sp.and rhinoencephalitis due toScedosporium apiospermum6 and 8 months after undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant from an HLA-matched unrelated donor. Discussion highlights risk factors for invasive fungal infections (i.e., mucormycosis and scedosporiosis), its clinical features, and the factors that must be taken into account to successfully treat them (early diagnosis, correction of predisposing factors, aggressive surgical debridement, and antifungal and adjunctive therapies).

scholarly journals Population Pharmacokinetics of Liposomal Amphotericin B and Caspofungin in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 536-543 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gudrun Würthwein ◽  
Charlotte Young ◽  
Claudia Lanvers-Kaminsky ◽  
Georg Hempel ◽  
Mirjam N. Trame ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Liposomal Amphotericin ◽  
Compartment Model ◽  
Volume Of Distribution ◽  
Concentration Data ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Two Compartment Model ◽  
Proportional Error Model

ABSTRACTLiposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) and caspofungin (CAS) are important antifungal agents in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (aHSCT) recipients. Little is known, however, about the pharmacokinetics (PK) of both agents and their combination in this population. The PK of LAMB and CAS and the potential for PK interactions between both agents were investigated within a risk-stratified, randomized phase II clinical trial in 53 adult aHSCT recipients with granulocytopenia and refractory fever. Patients received either LAMB (n= 17; 3 mg/kg once a day [QD]), CAS (n= 19; 50 mg QD; day 1, 70 mg), or the combination of both (CAS-LAMB;n= 17) for a median duration of 10 to 13 days (range, 4 to 28 days) until defervescence and granulocyte recovery. PK sampling was performed on days 1 and 4. Drug concentrations in plasma (LAMB, 405 samples; CAS, 458 samples) were quantified by high-pressure liquid chromatography and were analyzed using population pharmacokinetic modeling. CAS concentration data best fitted a two-compartment model with a proportional error model and interindividual variability (IIV) for clearance (CL) and central volume of distribution (V1) (CL, 0.462 liter/h ± 25%;V1, 8.33 liters ± 29%; intercompartmental clearance [Q], 1.25 liters/h; peripheral volume of distribution [V2], 3.59 liters). Concentration data for LAMB best fitted a two-compartment model with a proportional error model and IIV for all parameters (CL, 1.22 liters/h ± 64%;V1, 19.2 liters ± 38%;Q, 2.18 liters/h ± 47%;V2, 52.8 liters ± 84%). Internal model validation showed predictability and robustness of both models. None of the covariates tested (LAMB or CAS comedication, gender, body weight, age, body surface area, serum bilirubin, and creatinine clearance) further improved the models. In summary, the disposition of LAMB and CAS was best described by two-compartment models. Drug exposures in aHSCT patients were comparable to those in other populations, and no PK interactions were observed between the two compounds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document