Faculty Opinions recommendation of A cohort study on breakthrough invasive fungal infections in high-risk patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis.

Author(s):  
Livio Pagano
2016 ◽  
Vol 71 (9) ◽  
pp. 2634-2641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena M. Biehl ◽  
J. Janne Vehreschild ◽  
Blasius Liss ◽  
Bernd Franke ◽  
Birgid Markiefka ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4541-4541
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Irrera ◽  
Messina Giuseppe ◽  
Giuseppe Console ◽  
Massimo Martino ◽  
Cuzzola Maria ◽  
...  

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (19) ◽  
pp. 1711-1717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Menzin ◽  
Juliana L. Meyers ◽  
Mark Friedman ◽  
John R. Perfect ◽  
Amelia A. Langston ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3971-3971
Author(s):  
Roman Crazzolara ◽  
Julia Hutter ◽  
Josef Fritz ◽  
Christina Salvador ◽  
Cornelia Lass-Flörl ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document