2119. Matched-Paired Analysis of Patients Treated for Invasive Mucormycosis—Standard Treatment vs. Posaconazole New Formulations (MoveOn)

Background Current first-line (first) antifungal treatment for invasive mucormycosis (IM) consists of liposomal amphotericin B (AMB). Salvage (SAL) treatment options are limited and often based on posaconazole oral suspension (POSsusp). However, with the approval of posaconazole new formulations (POSnew), patients could benefit from improved pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of POSnew as first-line and SAL treatments for IM. Methods We performed a case-matched analysis with proven or probable IM patients from the FungiScope® Registry. 1st-POSnew and 1st-AMB+POSnew cases were matched with 1st-AMB-based treatment controls, and SAL-POSnew cases were matched with SAL-POSsusp controls. Each case was matched with up to three controls based on severity, hematological/oncological malignancy, surgery and/or renal dysfunction. Results Five patients receiving first-line POSnew alone, 18 receiving first-line POSnew combined with AMB, and 22 receiving salvage POSnew were identified. By day 42, favorable response was reported for 80.0% (n = 4/5) of patients receiving first-line POSnew, for 27.8% (n = 5/18) receiving first-line POSnew plus AMB, and for 50.0% (n = 11/22) receiving salvage POSnew. Day-42 all-cause mortality of patients receiving POSnew was lower compared with mortality in their respective controls (20.0% (n = 1/5) in 1st-POSnew vs. 53.3% (n = 8/15) in 1st-AMB; 33.3% (n = 6/18) in 1st-AMB+POSnew vs. 52.0% (n = 26/50) in 1st-AMB; 0.0% (n = 0/22) in SAL-POSnew vs. 4.4% (n = 2/45) in SAL-POSsusp). Conclusion In the observed patients, POSnew was effective in terms of treatment response and-associated mortality of IM. POSnew may be an alternative for the treatment of IM. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Matched-paired analysis of patients treated for invasive mucormycosis: standard treatment versus posaconazole new formulations (MoveOn)

Background First-line antifungal treatment for invasive mucormycosis (IM) consists of liposomal amphotericin B. Salvage treatment options are limited and often based on posaconazole oral suspension. With the approval of posaconazole new formulations, patients could benefit from improved pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability. Objectives Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of posaconazole new formulations for IM treatment. Methods We performed a case-matched analysis with proven or probable IM patients from the FungiScope® Registry. First-line posaconazole new formulations (1st-POSnew) and first-line amphotericin B plus posaconazole new formulations (1st-AMB+POSnew) cases were matched with first-line amphotericin B-based (1st-AMB) treatment controls. Salvage posaconazole new formulations (SAL-POSnew) cases were matched with salvage posaconazole oral suspension (SAL-POSsusp) controls. Each case was matched with up to three controls (based on severity, haematological/oncological malignancy, surgery and/or renal dysfunction). Results Five patients receiving 1st-POSnew, 18 receiving 1st-AMB+POSnew and 22 receiving SAL-POSnew were identified. By day 42, a favourable response was reported for 80.0% (n = 4/5) of patients receiving 1st-POSnew, for 27.8% (n = 5/18) receiving 1st-AMB+POSnew and for 50.0% (n = 11/22) receiving SAL-POSnew. Day 42 all-cause mortality of patients receiving posaconazole new formulations was lower compared with controls [20.0% (n = 1/5) in 1st-POSnew versus 53.3% (n = 8/15) in 1st-AMB; 33.3% (n = 6/18) in 1st-AMB+POSnew versus 52.0% (n = 26/50) in 1st-AMB; and 0.0% (n = 0/22) in SAL-POSnew versus 4.4% (n = 2/45) in SAL-POSsusp]. Conclusions Posaconazole new formulations were effective in terms of treatment response and associated mortality of IM. While posaconazole new formulations may be an alternative for treatment of IM, the limited sample size of our study calls for a cautious interpretation of these observations.

Comparison of Nonimage- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Interlaminar Epidural Block: A Matched Paired Analysis in the Same Individuals

Background. Although fluoroscopic guidance is recommended highly for more accurate lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injection (L-ESI), many physicians still use a nonimage-guided approach for L-ESIs. However, because of its associated risk of radiation and increased medical expense, the cost-effectiveness and safety of fluoroscopy-guided ESI have been called into question. The goal of this retrospective matched paired analysis in the same individuals was to assess the effectiveness and prevalence of complications of nonimage-guided L-ESI compared to those of fluoroscopy-guided L-ESI. Methods. Between 2015 and 2016, 94 patients who received both nonimage- and fluoroscopy-guided L-ESIs were analyzed retrospectively. The changes of the numeric rating scale (NRS) in pain intensity and functional outcome and the differences in the number of complications between blind and fluoroscopy-guided L-ESIs in the same individuals were evaluated by a matched paired analysis. Results. Of the 94 patients, the differences in NRS before and after the procedure were 1.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94–1.65) for the nonimage-guided group and 1.64 (95% CI = 1.28–2.01) for the fluoroscopy-guided group (p=0.16). More subjective functional improvement was observed in fluoroscopy-guided L-ESI (57, 60.6%) than in nonimage-guided L-ESI (47, 50.0%) without statistical significance (p=0.16). Nine (9.6%) patients in the nonimage-guided group experienced complications related to the procedure overall compared to 4 (4.3%) in the fluoroscopy-guided group (p=0.27). Conclusions. In this study, both blind and image-guided L-ESI techniques included similar extents of postprocedural outcomes and complications. Physicians should consider the risks associated with the two different techniques overall and develop ways to individualize the procedure to decrease the risk of complications and improve the positive outcomes of lumbar epidural steroid injections.