Fluconazole versus itraconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in haemato-oncology

Effectiveness of fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or immunotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

This review assessed the effectiveness of fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis on the incidence of oral fungal diseases in patients undergoing cancer treatment. The secondary outcomes evaluated were the adverse effects, discontinuation of cancer therapy due to oral fungal infection, mortality by a fungal infection, and the mean duration of antifungal prophylaxis. Twelve databases and records were searched. The RoB 2 and ROBINS I tools were used to assess the risk of bias. The relative risk (RR), risk difference, and standard mean difference (SMD) were applied with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of the evidence was determined by GRADE. Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. In randomized controlled trials pooling, fluconazole was a protective factor for the primary outcome (RR = 0.30; CI: 0.16, 0.55; p < 0.01, vs placebo). Compared to other antifungals, fluconazole was only more effective than the subgroup of amphotericin B and nystatin (alone or in combination) (RR = 0.19; CI: 0.09, 0.43; p < 0.01). Fluconazole was also a protective factor in non-randomized trials pooling (RR = 0.19; CI: 0.05, 0.78; p = 0.02, vs untreated). The results showed no significant differences for the secondary outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low and very low. In conclusion, prophylactic antifungals are necessary during cancer treatment, and fluconazole was shown to be more effective in reducing oral fungal diseases only compared with the subgroup assessing amphotericin B and nystatin, administered alone or in combination.

Evaluation for Metastatic Candida Focus and Mortality at Candida-associated Catheter-related Bloodstream Infections at the Pediatric Hematology-oncology Patients

BACKGROUND

Candidemia and Candida-associated catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are the significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with malignancy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis including all pediatric hematologic/oncologic malignancies patients with CRBSIs treated in Dr. Behçet Uz Children Diseases and Surgery Training and Research Hospital between the period of 2009 and 2020.

RESULTS

During the study period, 53 children with CRBSIs associated with Candida species were included. The most common malignancy was acute lymphoblastic leukemia (45.3%) and acute myeloid leukemia (15.1%). A total of 56 Candida isolates were present including non-albicans Candida species (80.4%) and Candida albicans (19.6%). The most common isolated Candida species was Candida parapsilosis (42.9%) and followed by C. albicans (19.6%). The ratio of azole prophylaxis was significantly higher in patients with the non-albicans Candida group (P=0.031). Candida-related endocarditis (vegetation) was present in 2 (3.8%) patients, and the overall rate of hepatosplenic candidiasis was 3.8%. Seven days Candida attributable mortality was 7.5% (4 patients) and 30 days Candida attributable mortality was 11.3% (6 patients). The Candida species responsible for the Candida-related deaths were as following: Candida tropicalis (n=3), C. parapsilosis (n=2), and C. lusitanae (n=1).

CONCLUSION

In pediatric cancer patients with Candida-associated CRBSIs, evaluation of the patient for organ involvement including liver and spleen ultrasonography and cardiac involvement with echocardiography are essential regardless of the patients' clinical picture.

Comparison of Antifungal Prophylaxis Drugs in Patients With Hematological Disease or Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Several antifungal drugs are available for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and adverse effects of antifungal agents using an integrated comparison.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials were searched to collect all relevant evidence published in randomized clinical trials that assessed antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease. Sources were search from inception up to October 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared any antifungal agent with a placebo, no antifungal agent, or another antifungal agent among patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT were included. Of 39 709 studies identified, 69 met the criteria for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The outcome from each study was estimated using the relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. The reliability and validity of the networks were estimated by addressing inconsistencies in the evidence from comparative studies of different treatments. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to February 2020. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) guideline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and mortality. The secondary outcomes were fungal infections, proven IFIs, invasive candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, fungi-related death, and withdrawal owing to adverse effects of the drug.

RESULTS

We identified 69 randomized clinical trials that reported comparisons of 12 treatments with at total of 14 789 patients. Posaconazole was the treatment associated with the best probability of success against IFIs (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 86.7%; mean rank, 2.5). Posaconazole treatment was associated with a significant reduction in IFIs (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) and invasive aspergillosis (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85) compared with placebo. Voriconazole was associated with a significant reduction in invasive candidiasis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.26) compared with placebo. However, posaconazole was associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal because of the adverse effects of the drug (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 17.5%; mean rank, 9.2). In subgroup analyses considering efficacy and tolerance, voriconazole might be the best choice for patients undergoing HSCT, especially allogenic HSCT; however, posaconazole was ranked as the best choice for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that voriconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients undergoing HSCT, and posaconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Antifungal agents in preventing oral candidiasis in clinical oncology: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review examined the comparative efficacy and safety of antifungal agents in preventing oral candidiasis among patients on cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials that compared antifungal agents to placebo or other antifungal agents used in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Relative ranking of antifungal agents was evaluated with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability score. A total of 20 randomised controlled trials (3,215 participants) comparing 11 interventions were included.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, clotrimazole was ranked the best agent for preventing the incidence of oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR), 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.55]; SUCRA = 0.89). Fluconazole was ranked the safest among other antifungal agents (SUCRA = 0.80), whereas clotrimazole (SUCRA = 0.36) and amphotericin B (SUCRA = 0.18) were ranked low for safety. Amphotericin B was associated with highest risk of adverse events (RR, 3.52 [95% CI 1.27 to 9.75]).

CONCLUSION

Clotrimazole is the most effective in preventing oral candidiasis, whereas fluconazole has the most favourable risk-benefit profile in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, we are unable to recommend clotrimazole as the best choice to prevent oral candidiasis due to unavailability of studies comparing clotrimazole with other antifungal agents.

European guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult haematology patients: summary of the updated recommendations from the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia

The European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL) updated its guidelines on antifungal prophylaxis for adults using the grading system of IDSA. The guidelines were extended to provide recommendations for other haematological diseases besides AML and recipients of an allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Posaconazole remains the drug of choice when the incidence of invasive mould diseases exceeds 8%. For patients undergoing remission-induction chemotherapy for AML and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), fluconazole can still offer an alternative provided it forms part of an integrated care strategy that includes screening with biomarkers and imaging. Similarly, aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B combined with fluconazole can be considered for patients at high risk of invasive mould diseases but other formulations of the polyene are discouraged. Fluconazole is still recommended as primary prophylaxis for patients at low risk of invasive mould diseases during the pre-engraftment phase of allogeneic HSCT whereas only a moderate recommendation could be made for itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole for patients at high risk. Posaconazole is strongly recommended for preventing invasive mould disease post-engraftment but only when graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) was accompanied by other risk factors such as its severity, use of an alternative donor or when unresponsive to standard corticosteroid therapy. The need for primary prophylaxis for other patient groups was less clear and should be defined by the estimated risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD).

Primary Fungal Prophylaxis in Hematological Malignancy: a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several new antifungal agents have become available for primary fungal prophylaxis of neutropenia fever in hematological malignancy patients. Our aim was to synthesize all evidence on efficacy and enable an integrated comparison of all current treatments. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publicly available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT). We searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the www.ClinicalTrials.gov website. In total, 54 RCTs were identified, including 13 treatment options. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis. Relative risk (RR) was adopted. Posaconazole was ranked highest in effectiveness for primary prophylaxis, being the most favorable in terms of (i) the RR for reduction of invasive fungal infection (0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.36) and (ii) the probability of being the best option (94% of the cumulative ranking). Posaconazole also demonstrated its efficacy in preventing invasive aspergillosis and proven fungal infections, with RR of 0.13 (CI, 0.03 to 0.65) and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.38), respectively. However, there was no significant difference among all of the antifungal agents in all-cause mortality and overall adverse events. Our network meta-analysis provided an integrated overview of the relative efficacy of all available treatment options for primary fungal prophylaxis for neutropenic fever in hematological malignancy patients under myelosuppressive chemotherapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation. On the basis of this analysis, posaconazole seems to be the most effective prophylaxis option until additional data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials become available.

Guideline for primary antifungal prophylaxis for pediatric patients with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

This guideline provides clinicians with evidence-based recommendations on the use of antifungal prophylaxis in children with cancer and undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Recommendations are divided into: (1) allogeneic HSCT (2) autologous HSCT (3) acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome and (4) patients with malignancy and neutropenia for >7 days. A systematic review was conducted and evidence summaries compiled. The quality of evidence and strength of each recommendation was determined using GRADE. Implementation of these recommendations will require adaptation to local context. The contribution of this guideline in the prevention of invasive fungal infections requires prospective evaluation.

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis to prevent invasive fungal diseases in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background:

Objectives were to compare systemic mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

Methods:

We searched OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1948-August 2011) and EMBASE (1980-August 2011). Randomised controlled trials of mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer or HSCT patients were included. Primary outcome was proven/probable invasive fungal infections (IFI). Analysis was completed by computing relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model and Mantel–Haenszel method.

Results:

From 984 reviewed articles, 20 were included in this review. Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduced the number of proven/probable IFI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). Mould-active prophylaxis also decreased the risk of invasive aspergillosis (IA; RR 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.75; P=0.0004) and IFI-related mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.96; P=0.03) but is also associated with an increased risk of adverse events (AEs) leading to antifungal discontinuation (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.24–3.07; P=0.004). There was no decrease in overall mortality (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.88–1.13; P=0.96).

Conclusion:

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduces proven/probable IFI, IA, and IFI-related mortality in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or HSCT, but increases AE and does not affect overall mortality.(PROSPERO Registration: CRD420111174)

Evidence-based guidelines for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever in Korea

Neutrophils play an important role in immunological function. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to infection, and except fever is present, inflammatory reactions are scarce in many cases. Additionally, because infections can worsen rapidly, early evaluation and treatments are especially important in febrile neutropenic patients. In cases in which febrile neutropenia is anticipated due to anticancer chemotherapy, antibiotic prophylaxis can be used, based on the risk of infection. Antifungal prophylaxis may also be considered if long-term neutropenia or mucosal damage is expected. When fever is observed in patients suspected to have neutropenia, an adequate physical examination and blood and sputum cultures should be performed. Initial antibiotics should be chosen by considering the risk of complications following the infection; if the risk is low, oral antibiotics can be used. For initial intravenous antibiotics, monotherapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic or combination therapy with two antibiotics is recommended. At 3-5 days after beginning the initial antibiotic therapy, the condition of the patient is assessed again to determine whether the fever has subsided or symptoms have worsened. If the patient's condition has improved, intravenous antibiotics can be replaced with oral antibiotics; if the condition has deteriorated, a change of antibiotics or addition of antifungal agents should be considered. If the causative microorganism is identified, initial antimicrobial or antifungal agents should be changed accordingly. When the cause is not detected, the initial agents should continue to be used until the neutrophil count recovers.

Antifungal prophylaxis during treatment for haematological malignancies: are we there yet?

Antifungal prophylaxis during treatment for haematological malignancies has been studied for 50 years, yet it has not been wholly effective even when using antifungal drugs that exhibit potent activity in vitro against a broad range of fungal pathogens. Trials have demonstrated that it can reduce the incidence of invasive fungal diseases (IFD) and fungal deaths, but only two studies have had an impact on overall mortality. Furthermore, it has not significantly reduced the need for empirical antifungal therapy. Posaconazole was effective in preventing invasive aspergillosis in two studies of high-risk patients, and consensus guidelines grade it as a suitable choice for antifungal prophylaxis of invasive mould disease; however, its bioavailability was compromised by vomiting or diarrhoea so that an alternative parenteral antifungal drug was required. A recent trial of voriconazole prophylaxis after allogeneic stem cell transplantation failed to show superiority over fluconazole. With more accurate definitions of IFD, that utilize fungal biomarkers, such as galactomannan, together with computerized tomographic imaging, there is growing interest in a diagnostic-driven strategy, which could prove to be a more efficacious approach.

Medical cost analysis for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic simulation analysis

GOALS OF WORK

We assessed the medical costs of different antifungal agents for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients in Japan with a cost simulation model designed for the study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used probabilities of prophylaxis failure, possible cases for empiric therapy, probable proportions of infections caused by fungus species among prophylaxis failure patients, and incidence of adverse events caused by any reason, based on systematic analysis of previously reported randomized trials identified by a computerized search of the PubMed database. Antifungal agents were limited to oral fluconazole, oral itraconazole, micafungin, and liposomal amphotericin B. The range of the expected medical cost was simulated as a sensitivity analysis using 95% of confidence interval of a mean.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified for our analysis. The prophylactic efficacy was comparable between the four agents. The simulated expected cost for invasive fungal infection prophylaxis and treatment of the infection was $1,035.74 when oral itraconazole was used for prophylaxis, $1,552.81 with oral fluconazole, $2,245.96 with micafungin, and $3,028.10 with liposomal amphotericin B. The total cost including treatment cost for adverse events related to each drug was $2,742.14, $3,547.91, $3,034.57, and $3,028.10, respectively. This result was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis in which IFI incidence and therapy duration were tested as parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis results suggest that oral itraconazole is the most cost-effective prophylactic antifungal agent for invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies, and this result was robust by sensitivity analysis.

A systematic review of oral fungal infections in patients receiving cancer therapy

PURPOSE

The aims of this systematic review were to determine, in patients receiving cancer therapy, the prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization, to determine the impact on quality of life and cost of care, and to review current management strategies for oral fungal infections.

METHODS

Thirty-nine articles that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were independently reviewed by two calibrated reviewers, each using a standard form. Information was extracted on a number of variables, including study design, study population, sample size, interventions, blinding, outcome measures, methods, results, and conclusions for each article. Areas of discrepancy between the two reviews were resolved by consensus. Studies were weighted as to the quality of the study design, and recommendations were based on the relative strength of each paper. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization.

RESULTS

For all cancer treatments, the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection was found to be 7.5% pre-treatment, 39.1% during treatment, and 32.6% after the end of cancer therapy. Head and neck radiotherapy and chemotherapy were each independently associated with a significantly increased risk for oral fungal infection. For all cancer treatments, the prevalence of oral colonization with fungal organisms was 48.2% before treatment, 72.2% during treatment, and 70.1% after treatment. The prophylactic use of fluconazole during cancer therapy resulted in a prevalence of clinical fungal infection of 1.9%. No information specific to oral fungal infections was found on quality of life or cost of care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased risk of clinically significant oral fungal infection during cancer therapy. Systemic antifungals are effective in the prevention of clinical oral fungal infection in patients receiving cancer therapy. Currently available topical antifungal agents are less efficacious, suggesting a need for better topical agents.

Primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: current therapeutic concepts

In recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs), the mortality associated with invasive fungal infections (IFIs) remains high, despite the introduction of broad-spectrum antifungal agents over the past 2 decades. Preventing exposure to fungal pathogens in this population is impossible; therefore, clinicians have focused on prophylactic use of antifungal agents to prevent IFIs in high-risk HSCT recipients. It is important to target antifungal prophylaxis by type of HSCT (autologous or allogeneic), local epidemiology, and risk factors for IFIs so that patients can receive the most appropriate agent while balancing costs and the risks of toxicity, and minimizing the development of resistance. To assist clinicians in weighing the pros and cons of currently available antifungal agents when choosing a suitable prophylactic regimen, we provide a review of several key prospective randomized trials that evaluated various antifungal agents for primary prophylaxis in adult HSCT recipients. In addition, we describe the epidemiology of and risk factors for IFIs in HSCT recipients, the difficulties in diagnosing IFIs, antifungal agents used for prophylaxis, and the goals of primary prophylaxis. Fluconazole remains the gold standard for primary prophylaxis in autologous HSCT recipients. For allogeneic HSCT recipients, the agent chosen for prophylaxis must be based on the patient's risk factors for IFIs. In low-risk patients, fluconazole is an appropriate agent to use for primary prophylaxis immediately after transplantation. However, in allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop complications, such as graft failure, graft-versus-host disease, or cytomegalovirus infection, prophylaxis with a mould-active agent should be used.

Prophylaxis with itraconazole is more effective than prophylaxis with fluconazole in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Antifungal prophylaxis using fluconazole or itraconazole has been studied for many years but still no consensus has been reached regarding their safety and effectiveness. We performed a systematic meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of fluconazole compared to itraconazole in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. We gathered the data for our analysis from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane-controlled trials register, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index (1/1990 to 1/2009) searches. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect model. Nine RCTs were identified that were published in full text. Significantly, fewer patients were withdrawn from the studies due to the development of adverse effects with fluconazole prophylaxis when compared with itraconazole (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.75, P=0.002). There were statistically significant differences regarding fungal infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.67, P=0.009) and invasive fungal infections (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.02-1.73, P=0.03) between the two educations. There were no statistically significant differences regarding overall mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77-1.17, P=0.64), fungal-related mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.80-2.07, P=0.31), and proven fungal infections (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.75-2.53, P=0.30). The analysis of published evidence reveals that itraconazole administration resulted in significantly fewer episodes of fungal infections and invasive fungal infections compared with fluconazole.

Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancies. Recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology

There is no widely accepted standard for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies. The Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology assigned a committee of hematologists and infectious disease specialists to develop recommendations. Literature data bases were systematically searched for clinical trials on antifungal prophylaxis. The studies identified were shared within the committee. Data were extracted by two of the authors (OAC and MSi). The consensus process was conducted by email communication. Finally, a review committee discussed the proposed recommendations. After consensus was established the recommendations were finalized. A total of 86 trials were identified including 16,922 patients. Only a few trials yielded significant differences in efficacy. Fluconazole 400 mg/d improved the incidence rates of invasive fungal infections and attributable mortality in allogeneic stem cell recipients. Posaconazole 600 mg/d reduced the incidence of IFI and attributable mortality in allogeneic stem cell recipients with severe graft versus host disease, and in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome additionally reduced overall mortality. Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B reduced the incidence rate of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Posaconazole 600 mg/d is recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome or undergoing allogeneic stem cell recipients with graft versus host disease for the prevention of invasive fungal infections and attributable mortality (Level A I). Fluconazole 400 mg/d is recommended in allogeneic stem cell recipients until development of graft versus host disease only (Level A I). Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B is recommended during prolonged neutropenia (Level B II).

Management of fungal infections following allogeneic stem cell transplantation

Fungal infection remains an important complication in allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Since the prognosis of fungal infection is poor, prophylaxis is critical for its management; owing to recent progression in allo-SCT management and widespread use of reduced-intensity regimens, the strategy of infectious prophylaxis has also changed. Various antifungals have recently been developed and applied to clinical use. A major change in antifungal management will probably occur in the next few years.

Antifungal Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients After Chemotherapy or Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on all-cause mortality as primary outcome, invasive fungal infections (IFIs), and adverse events. Many studies have evaluated the role of antifungal prophylaxis in cancer patients, with inconsistent conclusions.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing systemic antifungals with placebo, no intervention, or other antifungal agents for prophylaxis in cancer patients after chemotherapy. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings, and references were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of trials and extracted data.

Results

Sixty-four trials met inclusion criteria. Antifungal prophylaxis decreased all-cause mortality significantly at end of follow-up compared with placebo, no treatment, or nonsystemic antifungals (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95). In allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients, prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85), fungal-related mortality, and documented IFI. In acute leukemia patients, there was a significant reduction in fungal-related mortality and documented IFI, whereas the difference in mortality was only borderline significant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.06). Prophylaxis with itraconazole suspension reduced documented IFI when compared with fluconazole, with no difference in survival, and at the cost of more adverse events. On the basis of two studies, posaconazole prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98), fungal-related mortality, and IFI when compared with fluconazole.

Conclusion

Antifungal prophylaxis decreases all-cause mortality significantly in patients after chemotherapy. Antifungal prophylaxis should be administered to patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT, and should probably be administered to high-risk acute leukemia patients.

Use of prophylactic antifungals in the immunocompromised host

Oral candidiasis is a significant infection in patients being treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer, and in patients who are immunocompromised because of HIV infection and AIDS. Candida albicans is the most common fungal pathogen and has developed an extensive array of putative virulent mechanisms that allows successful colonization and infection of the host under suitable predisposing conditions. The purpose of this review of the literature was to assess the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of oral candidiasis in immunocompromised patients and in patients treated for cancer with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. These patient categories were selected because they have been the topic of published randomized controlled clinical trials. The studies reviewed provide strong evidence that oral candidiasis is associated with greater morbidity and mortality in these populations, which substantiates the aggressive treatment and prophylaxis of this infection. The literature supports the recommendation that systemically applied antifungal drugs have the greatest efficacy for the treatment of oral candidiasis in cancer and immunocompromised patients; however, these therapies must be prescribed with a thorough assessment for the risk for developing drug-induced toxicities. Guidelines on the prevention of drug-resistant oral candidiasis in these patients are not available and require elucidation. Further studies are required to expand the knowledge base of evidence-based antifungal therapies in a wider variety of immunocompromised patients and conditions, such as Sjögren's syndrome, diabetes, and denture wearers. Additional exploration is needed to determine which antifungal drug formulation, dose, and method of delivery is preferable for the type of fungal infection and the underlying etiology.

Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent and treat them. One of these side effects is oral candidiasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions (which may include placebo or no treatment) for the prevention of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PAPAS Trials Registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral candidiasis; primary outcome - prevention of oral candidiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were recorded on the following secondary outcomes if present: relief of pain, amount of analgesia, relief of dysphagia, incidence of systemic infection, duration of stay in hospital (days), cost of oral care, patient quality of life, death, use of empirical antifungal treatment, toxicity and compliance. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random-effects metaregression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 4226 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Drugs absorbed and partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were found to prevent oral candidiasis when compared to a placebo, or a no treatment control group, with RR for absorbed drugs = 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.78). For absorbed drugs in populations with an incidence of 20% (mid range of results in control groups), this implies a NNT of 9 (95% CI 7 to 13) patients need to be treated to avoid one patient getting oral candidiasis. There was no significant benefit shown for drugs not absorbed from the GI tract.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence, from randomised controlled trials, that drugs absorbed or partially absorbed from the GI tract prevent oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. There is also evidence that these drugs are significantly better at preventing oral candidiasis than drugs not absorbed from the GI.

Evaluating prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematologic malignancies

OBJECTIVE

Patients with hematologic malignancies are at substantial risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFI) that are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the epidemiology, risk factors, and efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted to identify relevant studies with special emphasis on meta-analyses and direct comparisons between antifungal agents.

RESULTS

The epidemiology of IFI has changed substantially in recent years with Candida albicans becoming less common owing to the widespread prophylactic use of azole antifungals. Invasive aspergillosis, fusariosis, and zygomycosis have increased in frequency. This change is at least partly related to the use of broad-spectrum antifungal agents, either as prophylaxis or as empirical treatment. Other risk factors for IFI include prior fungal exposure, immunosuppression, underlying disease, graft-vs.-host disease, and organ dysfunction. Inconsistent results have been reported in studies evaluating the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis in patients at risk of IFI. Meta-analyses found that antifungals, such as fluconazole and itraconazole, are effective in decreasing IFI and IFI-related mortality, primarily owing to yeast infections in patients with more severe immunosuppression (i.e. patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation), but do not decrease the overall mortality. The European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL) guidelines currently recommend fluconazole (AI, ie. strongly recommended, based on at least 1 well-executed, randomized trial) and itraconazole (BI, ie. generally recommended, based on at least 1 well-executed, randomized trial) in allogeneic transplant recipients. Posaconazole, a triazole antifungal, has been recently shown to decrease IFI incidence and overall mortality in some high-risk patients compared with standard azoles. Based on preliminary data, a provisional AI ECIL recommendation has been given.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with IFI, there is a need to accurately define patient groups at greatest risk of IFI and, when appropriate, to initiate effective antifungal prophylaxis.

Antifungal prophylaxis following reduced-intensity stem cell transplantation

Reduced-intensity stem cell transplantation (RIST) has been developed to be a novel curative option for advanced hematologic diseases. Its minimal toxicity allows for transplantation in patients with advanced age or with organ dysfunction. Young patients without comorbidity can undergo RIST as outpatients. However, fungal infection remains an important complication in RIST. Given the poor prognosis of fungal infection, prophylaxis is critical in its management. The prophylactic strategy is recently changing with the development of RIST. Hospital equipment is important for fungal prophylaxis; however, the median day for the development of fungal infection is day 100, when most RIST patients are followed as outpatients. The focus of fungal management after RIST needs to shift from in-hospital equipment to oral antifungals. Various antifungals have recently been developed and introduced for clinical use. A major change in antifungal management will probably occur within several years.

New strategies of antifungal therapy in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and patients with hematological malignancies

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality among high-risk individuals. Outcomes for IFI historically have been suboptimal and associated with a high mortality rate, hence global prophylaxis strategies have been applied to at-risk populations. Among certain populations, fluconazole prophylaxis has reduced systemic and superficial infections caused by Candida species. Newer azoles are currently being evaluated as prophylaxis and have the potential to provide protection against mould pathogens that are more troublesome to treat once they occur. Global prophylaxis strategies have the shortcoming of subjecting patients to therapy that ultimately will not need it. Targeted prophylaxis has the advantage of treating only patients at highest risk using some parameter of greater host susceptibility. Prophylaxis strategies are most suitable in patients at the highest risk for IFI. For patient groups whose risk is somewhat lower or when suspicion of IFI occurs in patients receiving prophylaxis, empirical antifungal therapy is often employed following a predefined period of fever. Again this approach subjects many non-infected patients to unnecessary and toxic therapy. A more refined approach such as presumptive or pre-emptive therapy whereby treatment is only initiated upon positive identification of a surrogate marker of infection in combination with clinical and radiological signs will subject fewer patients to toxic and expensive treatments.

[Fungal infection following reduced-intensity stem cell transplantation (RIST)]

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been established as a curative treatment for advanced hematologic malignancies. Transplantation with a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen has been developed, and the minimal toxicity of reduced-intensity stem cell transplantation (RIST) has made this procedure available for patients of advanced age or with organ dysfunction. The response of malignant lymphoma and some solid tumors to RIST has been observed. RIST with unrelated donors and umbilical cord blood has been studied. Fungal infection is an important complication of RIST. Since the prognosis of fungal infection is poor, the management has been focused on its prophylaxis. Given recent progression in RIST management, the strategy of infectious prophylaxis has also changed. Equipment in the hospital is important for fungal infection; however, the median day of the development of fungal infection is day 100, when most patients are followed as outpatients. The focus of fungal management after RIST is oral antifungal agents rather than in-hospital equipment. Various antifungal agents have recently been developed and applied for clinical use, and many of these have been developed simultaneously for the first time. A major change in antifungal management will probably occur in the next several years.

An open-label randomized trial comparing itraconazole oral solution with fluconazole oral solution for primary prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancy and profound neutropenia

OBJECTIVES

This trial studied the efficacy and safety of itraconazole and fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An 8 week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre trial comparing itraconazole oral solution (2.5 mg/kg twice daily; N=248) with fluconazole oral solution or capsules (400 mg daily; N=246) in 494 patients with anticipated profound neutropenia (i.e. neutrophil count expected to be <500 cells/mm3 for at least 10 days) from tertiary care centres.

RESULTS

Invasive fungal infections were reported for 4 out of 248 patients (1.6%) in the itraconazole group and 5 out of 246 patients (2.0%) in the fluconazole group. Invasive Aspergillus infections were proven for 2 out of 248 patients (0.8%) in the itraconazole group and 3 out of 246 patients (1.2%) in the fluconazole group. For both the ITT and profoundly neutropenic populations, no differences were detected between treatment groups in proven or suspected invasive fungal infections or other endpoints. The mortality rates owing to proven invasive fungal infections were 2 out of 248 patients (0.8%) for the itraconazole group and 3 out of 246 patients (1.2%) for the fluconazole group. There was also no difference between treatment groups in the number of patients who recovered from neutropenia or in the duration of neutropenia. More discontinuation of drug intake owing to nausea and more hypokalaemia occurred in the itraconazole group, other adverse events and the total number of adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study there were no differences in the efficacy and safety of itraconazole and fluconazole prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.

Fluconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials

Fluconazole and itraconazole are used as antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in order to compare their safety and effectiveness in this population. Data were obtained from PubMed, Current Contents, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials and references from relevant articles. Five RCTs were included in the analysis. Publication bias and statistically significant heterogeneity was not observed among the analysed studies. Fewer patients were withdrawn due to the development of adverse effects associated with fluconazole when compared with itraconazole [odds ratio (OR) = 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.41]. On the contrary, prophylactic use of fluconazole resulted in significantly more fungal infections (documented and suspected infections combined, OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.06-2.48). There were no statistically significant differences regarding documented fungal infections (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.97-2.35), invasive fungal infections (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.96-2.17), overall mortality (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-1.24) and mortality attributed by the authors to fungal infections (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.75-2.25) between the two medications. These data suggest that, even though itraconazole is more effective than fluconazole in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies, the development of more adverse effects may limit its use.

Clinical Pharmacokinetic Monitoring of Itraconazole Is Warranted in Only a Subset of Patients

Itraconazole is a synthetic triazole antifungal agent that is commonly used in the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infection. A role for itraconazole drug monitoring has been suggested previously; however, the advent of new formulations and increased clinical evidence may aid in further defining this role. Consequently, we have used a previously published decision-making algorithm to determine whether clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring of itraconazole is warranted. First, itraconazole has proven efficacy for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infection in immunocompromised individuals such as neutropenic cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and solid organ transplant patients. Several assays have been developed to quantify itraconazole and its main metabolite in patient plasma. Measurement of these plasma drug levels in many clinical studies has resulted in no clear definition of a relationship between concentration and efficacy. However, limited evidence suggests a correlation between itraconazole levels greater than 250 or 500 ng/mL and increased efficacy. Clinical monitoring of efficacy is difficult because of the challenges in diagnosis of fungal infections and nonspecific clinical symptoms associated with fungal infections. Pharmacokinetic studies of itraconazole indicate that significant inter- and intrapatient variability exists in both healthy and immunocompromised patient populations, although subpopulations such as neutropenic cancer and HIV patients appear to require more drug than their healthy counterparts to attain similar drug levels. A therapeutic range has not been defined for itraconazole, but because of its relatively minimal side effects, a narrow range is unlikely. Drug interactions can occur with itraconazole because it is both an inhibitor and substrate of the cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) enzyme and P-glycoprotein transporter systems. Protein binding alterations could also lead to differences in drug effect. Last, the duration of treatment of prophylaxis is significantly long to propose a potential benefit from drug monitoring. From weighing the available evidence, it appears that itraconazole drug level monitoring would provide more information on efficacy than clinical judgment alone in a subset of patients. Immunosuppressed patients requiring preventative therapy who have suspected poor absorption, are on concomitant enzyme inducers, or are suspected to be noncompliant would have the greatest benefit from itraconazole drug monitoring.

Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent and treat them. One of these side effects is oral candidiasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions (which may include placebo or no treatment) for the prevention of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Pre-indexed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were searched. Date of the most recent searches April 2004 (CENTRAL Issue 2, 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral candidiasis; primary outcome - prevention of oral candidiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were recorded on the following secondary outcomes if present: relief of pain, amount of analgesia, relief of dysphagia, incidence of systemic infection, duration of stay in hospital (days), cost of oral care, patient quality of life, death, use of empirical antifungal treatment, toxicity and compliance. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW & JC). The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using random effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 4226 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Drugs absorbed and partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were found to prevent oral candidiasis when compared to a placebo, or a no treatment control group, with RR for absorbed drugs = 0.47 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.78). For absorbed drugs in populations with an incidence of 20% (mid range of results in control groups), this implies a NNT of 9 (95% CI 7 to 13) patients need to be treated to avoid one patient getting oral candidiasis. There was no significant benefit shown for drugs not absorbed from the GI tract.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence, from randomised controlled trials, that drugs absorbed or partially absorbed from the GI tract prevent oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. There is also evidence that these drugs are significantly better at preventing oral candidiasis than drugs not absorbed from the GI.

An open multicentre comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerance of fluconazole and itraconazole in the treatment of cancer patients with oropharyngeal candidiasis

Oropharyngeal candidiasis is a frequent infection in cancer patients who receive cytotoxic drugs. In this study, the efficacy, safety and tolerance of fluconazole and itraconazole were compared in non-neutropenic cancer patients with oropharyngeal candidiasis. Of 279 patients who were randomised between the two treatment groups, 252 patients were considered to be eligible (126 in each group). The clinical cure rate was 74% for fluconazole and 62% for itraconazole (P=0.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.5-23.3%). The mycological cure rate was 80% for fluconazole and 68% for itraconazole (P=0.03, 95% CI: 1.2-22.6%). The safety and tolerance profile of both drugs were comparable. This study has shown that in patients with cancer and oropharyngeal candidiasis, fluconazole has a significantly better clinical and mycological cure rate compared with itraconazole.

Choices aplenty: antifungal prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

The incidence of invasive fungal infection (IFIs) in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients ranges from 10 to 25% with an overall case fatality rate of up to 70-90%. Candida and Aspergillus genera remain the two most common pathogens. Although fluconazole prophylaxis in this population has been moderately effective in reducing mortality due to invasive candidiasis, this agent does not have activity against invasive aspergillosis (IA) and other mould. Several new agents such as voriconazole and caspofungin have enhanced potency and broad-spectrum antifungal activity and show promising results against yeasts and filamentous fungi when given as therapy and as chemoprophylaxis. Further, new diagnostic tools to detect circulating fungal antigens in biological fluids and PCR-based methods to detect species or genus-specific DNA or RNA have been developed. Incorporating these techniques along with clinical criteria appear to improve the accuracy of preclinical diagnosis of IFIs. Such approaches may alter the current treatment strategy from prophylaxis to pre-emptive therapy, thereby potentially decreasing cost and toxicity in high-risk patients.

Intravenous itraconazole for prophylaxis of systemic fungal infections in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing induction chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Systemic fungal infections remain the leading cause of mortality in patients with newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The objective of the current study was to determine whether intravenous itraconazole (i.v. ITRA) reduced the incidence of probable/proven fungal infections in this group of patients, and compare the results with those of a historic control group treated with fluconazole plus itraconazole capsules (F+I).

METHODS

Patients with AML and high-risk MDS who underwent induction chemotherapy received 200 mg of i.v. itraconazole over 60 minutes every 12 hours during the first 2 days followed by 200 mg given i.v. once daily.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were enrolled, 96 of whom were evaluable. Approximately 48% of the patients in the group of patients treated with i.v. ITRA as well as in the F+I group completed prophylaxis. Nine patients (9%) in the study group developed either proven/probable fungal infections (Candida glabrata in 5 patients, C. tropicalis in 1 patient, C krusei in 1 patient, and Fusarium in 2 patients) compared with 3 patients (4%) with proven fungal infection in the historic control group (C. tropicalis in 1 patient and Aspergillus in 2 patients). There were no significant differences noted between the two groups with regard to the percentage of patients who developed proven/probable or possible fungal infection as well as with regard to survival. These results also were obtained after adjusting for relevant prognostic factors (creatinine and bilirubin). The most common toxicity encountered with the use of i.v. ITRA was NCI Grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its theoretic advantages, the authors found no evidence that i.v. ITRA is superior to itraconazole capsules, at least when the latter is combined with fluconazole.

Amphotericin B lipid complex as prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing induction chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The optimal antifungal prophylactic regimen for patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) undergoing induction chemotherapy has yet to be identified. A prospective historical control study evaluated the efficacy and safety of amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) in this patient population.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed patients with AML or high-risk MDS who were undergoing induction chemotherapy received prophylactic ABLC 2.5 mg/kg intravenously 3 times weekly. This treatment group was compared with a historical control group that had similar baseline characteristics and received prophylactic liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) 3 mg/kg 3 times weekly. The primary endpoint was the incidence of documented or suspected fungal infections during and up to 4 weeks after cessation of prophylaxis. Reported adverse events were used to assess tolerability.

RESULTS

The overall efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis was similar in patients who received ABLC and patients who received L-AmB (P=0.95). Among 131 ABLC-treated patients and 70 L-AmB-treated patients who were assessed for efficacy and safety, 49% of patients in each group completed therapy without developing a documented or suspected fungal infection. Documented fungal infections occurred in 5% of ABLC-treated patients and in 4% of L-AmB-treated patients. Alternative antifungal strategies were required because of persistent fever or pneumonia of unknown pathogen in 28% and 32% of ABLC-treated and L-AmB-treated patients, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events, therapy discontinuations due to adverse events, and survival rates also were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ABLC and L-AmB appeared to have similar efficacy and were tolerated well as antifungal prophylaxis in patients with AML and high-risk MDS who were undergoing induction chemotherapy.

Itraconazole prevents invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients treated for hematologic malignancies: evidence from a meta-analysis of 3,597 patients

PURPOSE

Efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis has not yet been convincingly proven in numerous trials of various antifungals. New evidence and the anti-Aspergillus efficacy of itraconazole prompted a new look at the data for the prevention of invasive fungal infections.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized, controlled studies with itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were identified from electronic databases and hand searching.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized trials included 3,597 patients who were assessable for invasive fungal infections. Itraconazole reduced the incidence of invasive fungal infection (mean relative risk reduction, 40% +/- 13%; P =.002), the incidence of invasive yeast infections (mean, 53% +/- 19%; P =.004) and the mortality from invasive fungal infections (mean, 35% +/- 17%; P =.04) significantly. The incidence of invasive Aspergillus infections was only reduced in trials using the itraconazole cyclodextrine solution (mean, 48% +/- 21%; P =.02) and not itraconazole capsules (mean, 75% +/- 73% increase; P =.3). The overall mortality was not changed. Adverse effects were rare, hypokalemia was noted in three studies, and a higher rate of drug discontinuation was found in trials that compared itraconazole cyclodextrine solution to a control without cyclodextrine. The effect of prophylaxis was clearly associated with a higher bioavailable dose of itraconazole.

CONCLUSION

Antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole effectively prevents proven invasive fungal infections and-shown for the first time for antifungal prophylaxis-reduces mortality from these infections and the rate of invasive Aspergillus infections in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Adequate doses of the oral cyclodextrine solution (at least 400 mg/d) or i.v. formulations (200 mg/d) of itraconazole are necessary for these effects.

Antifungal prophylaxis with azole derivatives

In recent years, several reports have underlined the increasing role of fungal infections as a cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalised patients. For this reason, and also in light of the high mortality rate associated with these infections, chemoprophylaxis has been advocated by several authors. The available evidence suggests that both fluconazole and itraconazole are able to decrease candida colonisation and infection, when compared with placebo or with nonabsorbable antifungals. Data seem also to suggest that a decrease in fungus-related mortality can be achieved with prophylaxis, although with little effect on overall mortality, probably because of the importance of severe underlying diseases. Itraconazole proved to be effective in the prevention of fungal infections, including invasive aspergillosis, although with increased incidence of side-effects, often leading to treatment discontinuation. The other side of the coin is that antifungal prophylaxis might have untoward effects, such as the selection of triazole-resistant Candida strains or the induction of resistance. In addition, some authors have suggested that the use of triazoles might modulate the pattern of infecting organisms in cancer patients, increasing the risk of both aspergillosis and bacteremia. In conclusion, antifungal prophylaxis with triazole antifungals should be used with caution, only in patients at high risk for invasive fungal infections. These include allogeneic bone marrow transplant patients (especially those with mismatched or unrelated donors), acute myeloid leukaemia patients treated with high-dose cytarabine (C-ara), very-low-birth-weight infants, patients with chronic granulomatous disease, and high-risk surgical and intensive-care unit patients.

Evidence-based assessment of primary antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies

Invasive fungal infection is an increasing source of morbidity and mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies, particularly those with prolonged and severe neutropenia (absolute white blood cell count < 100/microL). Early diagnosis of invasive fungal infection is difficult, suggesting that antifungal prophylaxis could be the best approach for neutropenic patients undergoing intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Consequently, antifungal prophylaxis has been extensively studied for more than 20 years. Nonabsorbable polyenes reduce superficial mycoses but are not effective in preventing or treating invasive fungal infections. Intravenous amphotericin B and the newer azoles were used in numerous clinical trials, but the value of antifungal prophylaxis in defined risk groups with cancer is still open to discussion. Recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplants and patients with a relapsed leukemia are high-risk patient populations. In addition, certain risk factors are well defined, for example, neutropenia more than 10 days, corticosteroid therapy, sustained immunosuppression, and graft-versus-host disease. In contrast to study efforts, evidence-based recommendations on the clinical use of antifungal prophylaxis according to risk groups are rare. The objective of this review of 50 studies accumulating more than 9000 patients is to assess evidence-based criteria with regard to the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic cancer patients.

Liposomal amphotericin B versus the combination of fluconazole and itraconazole as prophylaxis for invasive fungal infections during induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) compared with a combination of fluconazole plus itraconazole (F+I) as prophylaxis in this setting.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS who were undergoing initial induction chemotherapy were randomized to receive either F+I (fluconazole 200 mg orally every 12 hours plus itraconazole tablets 200 mg orally every 12 hours) or L-AmB (3 mg/kg intravenously 3 times per week) in this prospective, open-label study.

RESULTS

Seventy-two L-AmB-treated patients and 67 F+I-treated patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 47% of patients completed antifungal prophylaxis without a change in therapy for proven or suspected fungal infection. Three patients in each arm developed a proven fungal infection. Twenty-three percent of the L-AmB-treated patients and 24% of the F+I-treated patients were changed to alternative antifungal therapy because of persistent fever (P value not significant). Nine percent of the L-AmB-treated patients developed pneumonia of unknown etiology compared with 16% of the F+I-treated patients (P value not significant). Increases in serum creatinine levels to > 2 mg/dL (20% for the L-AmB arm vs. 6% for the F+I arm; P = 0.012) and increases in serum bilirubin levels to > 2 mg/dL (43% vs. 22%, respectively; P = 0.021) were more common with L-AmB. Infusion-related reactions were noted in five L-AmB-treated patients. Responses to chemotherapy and induction mortality rates were similar for the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

L-AmB and F+I appear similar in their efficacy as antifungal prophylaxis during induction chemotherapy for patients with AML and MDS. L-AmB was associated with higher rates of increased serum bilirubin and creatinine levels.

Clinical experience with itraconazole in systemic fungal infections

The broad spectrum antifungal itraconazole is an effective and well tolerated agent for the prophylaxis and treatment of systemic fungal infections. The recent development of an itraconazole oral solution and an intravenous itraconazole solution has increased the options for the use of this drug and increased the oral bioavailability in a variety of at-risk patients. Reliable absorption of the itraconazole oral solution has been demonstrated in patients with HIV infection, neutropenic patients with haematological malignancy, bone marrow transplant recipients and neutropenic children. In clinical trials, itraconazole oral solution (5 mg/kg/day) was more effective at preventing systemic fungal infection in patients with haematological malignancy than placebo, fluconazole suspension (100 mg/day) or oral amphotericin-B (2 g/kg/day) and was highly effective at preventing fungal infections in liver transplant recipients. There were no unexpected adverse events with the itraconazole oral solution in any of these trials. In addition, intravenous itraconazole solution is at least as effective as intravenous amphotericin-B in the empirical treatment of neutropenic patients with systemic fungal infections, and drug-related adverse events are more frequent in patients treated with amphotericin-B. A large proportion of patients with confirmed aspergillosis also respond to treatment with intravenous itraconazole followed by oral itraconazole. The new formulations of itraconazole are therefore effective agents for prophylaxis and treatment of most systemic fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancy.

Current management of fungal infections

The management of superficial fungal infections differs significantly from the management of systemic fungal infections. Most superficial infections are treated with topical antifungal agents, the choice of agent being determined by the site and extent of the infection and by the causative organism, which is usually readily identifiable. One exception is onychomycosis, which usually requires treatment with systemically available antifungals; the accumulation of terbinafine and itraconazole in keratinous tissues makes them ideal agents for the treatment of onychomycosis. Oral candidiasis in immunocompromised patients also requires systemic treatment; oral fluconazole and itraconazole oral solution are highly effective in this setting. Systemic fungal infections are difficult to diagnose and are usually managed with prophylaxis or empirical therapy. Fluconazole and itraconazole are widely used in chemoprophylaxis because of their favourable oral bioavailability and safety profiles. In empirical therapy, lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin-B and intravenous itraconazole are safer than, and at least as effective as, conventional amphotericin-B (the former gold standard). The high acquisition costs of the lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin-B have limited their use.

Fungal infections in patients with neutropenia: challenges in prophylaxis and treatment

Fungal infections are a leading cause of mortality in patients with neutropenia. Candidiasis and aspergillosis account for most invasive fungal infections. General prophylactic measures include strict hygiene and environmental measures. Haemopoietic growth factors shorten the duration of neutropenia and thus may reduce the incidence of fungal infections. Fluconazole is appropriate for antifungal prophylaxis and should be offered to patients with prolonged neutropenia, such as high-risk patients with leukaemia undergoing remission induction or consolidation therapy and high-risk stem cell transplant recipients. Empirical antifungal therapy is mandatory in patients with persistent febrile neutropenia who fail to respond to broad-spectrum antibacterials. Intravenous amphotericin B at a daily dose of 0.6 to 1 mg/kg is preferred whenever aspergillosis cannot be ruled out. Lipid formulations of amphotericin B have demonstrated similar efficacy and are much better tolerated. Fluconazole is the best choice for acute candidiasis in stable patients; amphotericin B should be used in patients with unstable disease. Use of fluconazole is restricted by the existence of resistant strains (Candida krusei and, to a lesser extent, C. glabrata). Amphotericin B still remains the gold standard for invasive aspergillosis. Lipid formulations of amphotericin B are effective in aspergillosis and because they are less nephrotoxic are indicated in patients with poor renal function. Itraconazole is an alternative in patients who have good intestinal function and are able to eat. Mucormycosis, trichosporonosis, fusariosis and cryptococcosis are less common but require specific management. New antifungal agents, especially new azoles, are under development. Their broad in vitro spectrum and preliminary clinical results are promising.

Amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (Amphocil) vs fluconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: data of a prematurely stopped clinical trial

We conducted an open label, randomised clinical trial to compare amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD, Amphocil) 2 mg/kg/day intravenously with fluconazole 200 mg/day orally, for the prevention of fungal disease in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. In the event of unresolved fever after 4 days of empirical antibacterial therapy, patients in both treatment groups were to receive ABCD, 4 mg/kg/day. However, the study had to be stopped in an early phase, due to severe side-effects of ABCD. A total of 24 patients were enrolled, 12 patients were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic ABCD, which was administered for a mean of 13.9 days. Fluconazole prophylaxis was given to 12 patients for a mean of 21.2 days. Therapeutic ABCD, 4 mg/kg, was initiated in four patients because of suspected fungal infection, all of whom had initially received fluconazole. A high rate of infusion-related toxicity of ABCD was observed. Chills occurred in 15/16 ABCD recipients (94%), accompanied by a temperature rise of >/=2 degrees C in 4/16 patients and of >/=1 degrees C but <2 degrees C in 10/16 patients. Other ABCD-related adverse events were hypotension (4/16), nausea with vomiting (5/16), tachycardia (7/16), headache (3/16) and dyspnoea (3/16). For premedication patients received: antihistamines (12/16), hydrocortisone (9/16) and/or morphine (6/16). ABCD was discontinued in 8/16 patients (50%) due to side-effects, which ultimately dictated early termination of the study. We conclude that ABCD is not suitable for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients due to severe infusion-related side-effects. Subject numbers were too low for conclusions on variables of antifungal efficacy.