Is Antifungal Prophylaxis Useful In Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT) During Hospitalization?.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4541-4541
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Irrera ◽  
Messina Giuseppe ◽  
Giuseppe Console ◽  
Massimo Martino ◽  
Cuzzola Maria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Mucosal Damage ◽  
Invasive Disease ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Antifungal Drugs ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Abstract 4541 Introduction: Limited data demonstrate to what extent preventing fungal exposures is effective in preventing infection and disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal duration of fluconazole prophylaxis in allogeneic recipients to prevent invasive disease with fluconazole-susceptible Candida species during neutropenia. Oral, nonabsorbable antifungal drugs might reduce superficial colonization and control local mucosal candidiasis, but have not been demonstrated to reduce invasive candidiasis. Anti-fungal prophylaxis is recommended in a subpopulation of autologous recipients with underlying hematologic malignancies with prolonged neutropenia and mucosal damage. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 1007 SCT performed in our center between 1992 and 2009 in 809 consecutive patients, irrespective of diagnosis. HEPA filter and environmental monitoring (air, water, surfaces) are attributes of our transplant center. Results: The main characteristics of the patients are reported in Table 1. Systemic prophylaxis was used according to the guidelines (Table 2): fluconazole in the nineties, then itraconazole and from 2004 was either abolished or substituted with non-adsorbable prophylaxis in transplants with standard risk. Secondary prophylaxis was prescribed for high risk patients (with infectious fungal history, suggestive iconography, positive fungal biomarker). In 17 years our Center has never been colonized by mould. Only 3 probable aspergillosis infections and 4 proven fungal infections (fusarium, mucor and 2 aspergillosis) were diagnosed, all in allogeneic patients (2 haplotipical, 1 singenic, 1 sibiling, 1 MUD and 2 mismatched), resulting in death in all cases. No infection was documented in autologous setting, while the infection rate in allogenic setting was 3.6% with an incidence rate of 1.1 infection per 10000 transplants/year. These results are significantly lower than published reports. Conclusion: Systemic antifungal prophylaxis should not be performed in autologous SCT patients. The abuse of systemic prophylaxis targeting yeasts has influenced the change of epidemiology in the transplant setting with prevalence of mould infections. The identification of high risk patients is useful to select patients for systemic antifungal or secondary prophylaxis to reducing overtreatment, incidence of resistant strains and costs. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Risk-Adapted Anti-Mould Prophylaxis Improves Supportive Care in Childhood Leukemia Patients

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3971-3971
Author(s):  
Roman Crazzolara ◽  
Julia Hutter ◽  
Josef Fritz ◽  
Christina Salvador ◽  
Cornelia Lass-Flörl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Liposomal Amphotericin ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in children treated for malignant hematologic disease has traditionally been based on the widespread use of fluconazole. With the awareness of increasing rates of invasive mould infections, new agents have been developed and offered to patients at highest risk. METHODS: We compared the tolerance and outcome of different antifungal prophylaxis in 198 childhood patients treated for acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemia in a pediatric cancer center. Until 2011 antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole was offered to all patients, resulting in 15.2-19.4% of invasive mould infections. As the burden of fungal infections was restricted to high risk patients only (i.e. acute myeloid leukemia, leukemia relapse, high risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia and patients after stem cell transplant) and no infection with candida was registered, antifungal prophylaxis was replaced with liposomal amphotericin and offered to this particular patient group. RESULTS: Liposomal amphotericin was well tolerated; there was no occurrence of infusion-related reaction and/or glomerular-associated nephrotoxicity. The development of vincristine-induced neurotoxicity was significantly reduced, as stool frequency was increased up to 38% in patients treated with liposomal amphotericin (p = 0.024). Importantly, there was a marked shift in the percentage of patients with severe constipation (15.5% versus 4.2%, fluconazole versus liposomal amphotericin respectively, p = 0.010). Notably, with limitation of prophylactic treatment to high risk patients a major group of patients did not receive any antifungal prophylaxis (48.81%) and most importantly, the occurrence of invasive fungal infection was completely prevented (p = 0.021). In comparison, 10 patients in the fluconazole group developed proven invasive pulmonary infections. Of these, 6 patients developed disseminated disease, and 4 patients died. Aspergillus was isolated in 40% and rhizopus in 30% of biopsy specimens. CONCLUSION: Polyene prophylaxis offers effective antifungal activity with improved tolerability compared to older agents. The potential impact of this treatment should be included in current prophylaxis guidelines of antileukemic treatment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Prophylaxis and treatment of invasive fungal infections in hematological patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1S) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Alessandro Busca ◽  
Anna Candoni ◽  
Livio Pagano ◽  
Francesco Scaglione ◽  
Claudio Viscoli
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Empiric Therapy ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Antifungal Drugs ◽  
Remission Induction ◽  
Therapeutic Drug ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Dose Concentration ◽  
Risk Patients

The evidence from the literature strongly support antifungal prophylaxis in high risk haematological patients, such as patients with AML during remission induction chemotherapy and alloHSCT patients. Current antifungal prophylaxis guidelines for high risk patients recommend azoles (fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole) and echinocandins (micafungin) with the strongest level of evidence. In terms of treatment, the choice between empiric therapy (or fever driven) and pre-emptive therapy (or diagnostic driven) is still debated. Not a single therapeutic strategy is appropriate in every patients, in particular empirical antifungal therapy may be recommended in patients at very high risk, while a pre-emptive approach may be advised for those at standard risk. In order to exploit the synergistic and/or additive effect of two antifungal drugs it’s possible to combine two agents that work with different mechanisms of action (e.g. echinocandins + azoles or polyenes). Once the treatment has been initiated we should consider the therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the drugs, especially when the pharmacokinetic variability is high and the dose-concentration effect relationships is not predictable (e.g. for itraconazole, voriconazole and posaconazole).

scholarly journals A cohort study on breakthrough invasive fungal infections in high-risk patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis

2016 ◽  
Vol 71 (9) ◽  
pp. 2634-2641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena M. Biehl ◽  
J. Janne Vehreschild ◽  
Blasius Liss ◽  
Bernd Franke ◽  
Birgid Markiefka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

scholarly journals Prophylaxis and treatment of invasive fungal infections in hematological patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1S) ◽  
pp. 27-40
Author(s):  
Alessandro Busca ◽  
Anna Candoni ◽  
Livio Pagano ◽  
Francesco Scaglione ◽  
Claudio Viscoli
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Empiric Therapy ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Antifungal Drugs ◽  
Remission Induction ◽  
Therapeutic Drug ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Dose Concentration ◽  
Risk Patients

The evidence from the literature strongly support antifungal prophylaxis in high risk haematological patients, such as patients with AML during remission induction chemotherapy and alloHSCT patients. Current antifungal prophylaxis guidelines for high risk patients recommend azoles (fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole) and echinocandins (micafungin) with the strongest level of evidence. In terms of treatment, the choice between empiric therapy (or fever driven) and pre-emptive therapy (or diagnostic driven) is still debated. Not a single therapeutic strategy is appropriate in every patients, in particular empirical antifungal therapy may be recommended in patients at very high risk, while a pre-emptive approach may be advised for those at standard risk. In order to exploit the synergistic and/or additive effect of two antifungal drugs it’s possible to combine two agents that work with different mechanisms of action (e.g. echinocandins + azoles or polyenes). Once the treatment has been initiated we should consider the therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the drugs, especially when the pharmacokinetic variability is high and the dose-concentration effect relationships is not predictable (e.g. for itraconazole, voriconazole and posaconazole).

scholarly journals 1701. Differences in Diagnostic Performance of β-d-Glucan Testing in Patients with Varying Degrees of Susceptibility to Invasive Fungal Infections

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S623-S623
Author(s):  
Eliel Nham ◽  
Si-Ho Kim ◽  
Hyunjoo Lee ◽  
Jae-Hoon Ko ◽  
Kyungmin Huh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Pneumocystis Pneumonia ◽  
Host Factors ◽  
European Organization ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Group A

Abstract Background Usefulness of β-d-glucan (BDG) testing in high-risk patients for invasive fungal infection (IFI) diagnosis has been well demonstrated. However, data on its usefulness in patients without risk factors are limited. We evaluated differences in the diagnostic performance of BDG testing in patients with varying degrees of susceptibility to IFI. Methods From April 2017 to May 2018, all consecutive patients (≥18year-old) who were performed BDG testing (Beijing Gold Mountainriver Tech) were enrolled. Patients were classified into three groups: Group A for patients with host factors defined by 2008 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Mycoses Study Group diagnostic (EORTC-MSG) criteria, Group B for patients with malignancy receiving recent chemotherapy within 1 month without host factors, and Group C for others. Cases of proven and probable IFI defined by EORTC-MSG criteria, Pneumocystis pneumonia and all fungemia were considered as true IFIs. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) were calculated with a cut-off value for positivity ≥80 pg/mL. Results Among 473 eligible patients, 190, 142, and 141 patients were classified into group A, B, and C, respectively. Rates of true IFI were significantly different in each group (57/190, 19/142, and 10/141 in each group, P < 0.001). Sensitivities were 0.83, 0.68, and 0.70 and specificities were 0.62, 0.59, and 0.63 in group A, B, and C, respectively. PPVs were considerably different among three groups (PPV for 0.48, 0.20, and 0.12; NPV for 0.89, 0.92 and 0.97 in each group, respectively). Conclusion The BDG test is a useful assay for IFI diagnosis; however, the clinical interpretation should be different by patient risks. Whereas BDG testing could be considered as a tool for predicting IFI in high-risk patients, it only could be a tool for excluding IFI in patient without risk factors. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Finding of Kinase Domain Mutations at Diagnosis IN PATIENTS with Chronic PHASE Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML) MAY Identify Those at High RISK of Disease Progression.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 4251-4251
Author(s):  
Angelo Michele Carella ◽  
Gabriella Cirmena ◽  
Gioacchino Catania ◽  
Gianmatteo Pica ◽  
Germana Beltrami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Kinase Domain ◽  
Imatinib Treatment ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Kinase Domain Mutations

Abstract Abstract 4251 Kinase domain (KD) mutations are associated with resistance to Imatinib in CP-CML but their incidence and prognostic significance before any treatment are unclear. To assess if KD mutations at diagnosis may have prognostic significance, we have recently reviewed (before treatment with Imatinib) the mutation status of 45 patients,of whom low risk: 24 patients; intermediate risk: 8 patients; high risk: 13 patients, according to Sokal/Euro. We found that a) no patient with low and intermediate risk showed KD mutations at diagnosis; b) 4/13 high risk patients showed the following mutations at diagnosis: S265R, E255K, F359Y and E255V/E258V; other 5 patients developed mutations during Imatinib treatment (E255V, T315I, E255V/E258V, H396R and D248-274). All patients with low-intermediate risk are alive and well at a median of 44 months (range, 15-71 months). On the contrary, 3/4 high risk patients with KD mutations at diagnosis progressed and died of blastic evolution at 23, 33 and 69 months despite Nilotinib and Dasatinib therapy. Other 3/5 high risk patients who developed mutations under Imatinib, died of blastic evolution at 22, 23 and 43 months despite Nilotinib and Dasatinib treatment. Seven high risk patients are alive under Imatinib between 4 and 51 months. In conclusion, the KD mutations at diagnosis were frequent in high Sokal/Euro risk group supporting the concept that such mutations could be related to the basic biology of the disease. These data, if confirmed, could modify our approach to high risk patients with KD mutation at diagnosis, i.e. utilizing second/third TKI generation earlier during the disease and, in selected cases, reconsidering allografting earlier before leukemic evolution make such procedure useless. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document