Comparing the Real-World Use of Isavuconazole to Other Anti-Fungal Therapy for Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with and without Underlying Disparities: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

Safety and Effectiveness of Isavuconazole Treatment for Invasive Fungal Infections in Chinese Patients with Haematologic Diseases: A Case Series

Objective

Isavuconazole (ISZ), a newer antifungal agent approved for treating invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis, has been available in China since 2022. However, real-world data on ISZ use among Chinese patients with hematological diseases remain limited. In this study, we present our experience with ISZ for invasive fungal infection (IFI) management in hematology patients.

Methods

Data on patient characteristics, ISZ administration variables, IFI treatment response to ISZ, and potential ISZ-associated adverse events in hematology patients from our center were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

A total of 25 hematology patients treated with ISZ were included. One (4.0%) patient had proven IFI, 13 (52.0%) had probable IFI, and the remaining 11 (44.0%) were classified as having possible IFI. ISZ was used as primary therapy in 8 cases (32.0%) and salvage therapy in 17 cases (68.0%). The switch to ISZ as salvage therapy was driven by refractoriness to primary therapy in 70.6% of cases and by refractoriness and intolerance to prior antifungal treatment in 29.4%. Clinical improvement was observed in 16 (64.0%) patients. Five patients died during hospitalization, and four discontinued therapy due to clinical deterioration. Adverse events potentially attributable to ISZ occurred in 5 patients (20.0%), including nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, and blurred vision (1 case each), and with the remaining two cases involving combined hepatorenal toxicity.

Conclusion

ISZ demonstrates promising clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile for IFI treatment in Chinese patients with hematologic diseases.

Experience with isavuconazole in the treatment of mucormycosis and breakthrough fungal infections

Isavuconazole, a triazole-class antifungal, is effective and safe for both primary treatment and salvage therapy in a variety of fungal infections. This article reviews recent knowledge on the role of this antifungal in the treatment of mucormycosis and breakthrough invasive fungal infections (bIFI) during antifungal therapy. Isavuconazole has demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile in various patient populations with mucormycosis, including those with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus or severe immunosuppression. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that drug interactions in patients with mucormycosis, where a solid organ transplant was a predisposing factor, have been effectively managed. In the treatment of bIFIs, the use of isavuconazole requires a thoughtful reflection about the fungal species involved and their susceptibility profiles. This is highly dependent on the antifungal agent administered before the onset of bIFI. Early diagnosis and appropriate antifungal therapy are essential to improve outcomes in patients with mucormycosis and bIFIs. Isavuconazole represents a valuable option for managing these complex infections.

The efficacy and safety of first-line monotherapies in primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis: a systematic review

Objective

Several antifungals are available for the treatment of patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA). This study aims to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of the first-line monotherapies in primary therapy of IA through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, Wanfang database, and China Biology Medicine for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2023 that evaluated the efficacy and safety of monotherapies. We performed NMA with a frequentist random effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Primary outcomes were the all-cause mortality at week 12, and secondary outcomes included overall response rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) and severe adverse events (SAEs).

Results

A total of three RCTs involving 1,368 participants (four antifungals) were included. The NMA showed that compared to amphotericin B deoxycholate (D-AmB), the triazoles (posaconazole (POS), isavuconazole (ISA) and voriconazole (VCZ)) can improve the overall response rate in primary therapy of IA, but only VCZ and ISA can reduce the all-cause mortality at week 12 for patients with proven and probable IA (VCZ vs D-AmB: RR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.47-0.93, moderate certainty; ISA vs D-AmB: RR = 0.52, 95%CI = 0 .31-0.86, low certainty). ISA (SUCRA = 93.50%; mean rank, 1.20) seemed to be the most effective therapy in the above population. As to proven, probable, and possible IA patients, the triazoles were superior to D-AmB in terms of reducing all-cause mortality. Furthermore, the risk of AEs and SAEs was comparable for the three triazoles, but the risk of SAEs was significantly higher for D-AmB than others.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of triazoles are more favorable than D-AmB in the primary therapy of IA, with ISA being the optimal choice.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO CRD42023407632.

Use of isavuconazole in mucormycosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mucormycosis is an opportunistic fungal infection which is associated with poor prognosis. Only a few antifungals are available in the arsenal against mucormycosis. The global guidelines for diagnosing and managing mucormycosis recommend high doses of liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) as the first-line treatment. Isavuconazole is another potential treatment option for mucormycosis.

MAIN BODY

This systematic review aims to consolidate and analyse existing evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole in treating mucormycosis alone or in combination with LAmB. For data aggregation, comprehensive searches were conducted across various electronic databases, such as PubMed, Science Direct, Trip, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and Open-Gray. Furthermore, we explored the gray literature, employing tailored keywords. The reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized to identify additional pertinent publications. Articles reporting any studies, case series, or case reports on any form of mucormycosis exclusively involving human subjects published in English were included. There were no time restrictions involved. We extracted crucial data, such as publication year, country, disease form, isavuconazole dosage, frequency, duration, overall outcomes, and reported adverse effects. A total of 31 articles, which included four case series, 24 case reports, one open-label trial, one randomized controlled trial, and one non-interventional registry study, were included in the final analysis. 135 adult patients and 14 children were treated with isavuconazole as primary monotherapy, primary combination therapy, nonprimary monotherapy, or nonprimary combination therapy. The mortality rate following LAmB monotherapy, amphotericin B plus azole, amphotericin B followed with azole, posaconazole only and isavuconazole only was 32%, 6.6%, 13.7%, 17.2% and 24.6%, respectively. The heterogeneity of the studies did not allow for a comparison of the different treatment strategies (primary mono- vs. primary combination, etc.).

SHORT CONCLUSION

The use of isavuconazole in combination therapies during the acute phase via intravenous administration alongside LAmB or other triazoles, followed by long-term monotherapy via the oral route, has yielded promising recovery rates. Adverse events associated with the use of isavuconazole are infrequently reported.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Isavuconazole Versus Amphotericin B for Patients with Invasive Mucormycosis

BACKGROUND

Invasive mucormycosis (IM) poses a substantial morbidity and mortality burden among immunocompromised patients.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of isavuconazole with those of amphotericin B in patients with IM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this observational cohort study, we enrolled patients who were diagnosed with IM and treated with either isavuconazole or amphotericin B.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients met the study criteria. Of these, 47 received isavuconazole, and 59 received amphotericin B as the primary treatment. The two cohorts had similar baseline characteristics, including a history of malignancy, use of immunosuppressants, infection sites, and pathogens. The amphotericin B group demonstrated a significantly greater incidence of renal disorders (p < 0.001) and hypokalemia (p < 0.001) than the isavuconazole group. The proportion of patients who received salvage therapy was greater in the amphotericin B group than in the isavuconazole group (42% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Eighteen patients in the amphotericin B group discontinued treatment because of adverse events, whereas no patients in the isavuconazole group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. A significant difference in the primary therapeutic response between the isavuconazole and amphotericin B groups was noted (p = 0.013), with a higher treatment failure rate in the amphotericin B group (68% vs. 36%, p = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality or mucormycosis-attributable mortality rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Isavuconazole outperformed amphotericin B as a first-line treatment option for IM in terms of its clinical effectiveness and safety.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Patterns of Real-World Isavuconazole Use in Europe (2015-2019)

INTRODUCTION

Real-world data from multinational observational studies are required to better understand the role and performance of isavuconazole in real-world practice in Europe.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review was conducted at 16 sites in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Eligible records were from patients aged ≥ 18 years at the time of isavuconazole initiation and received at least one dose of isavuconazole for suspected or confirmed invasive aspergillosis (IA) or invasive mucormycosis (IM) during the eligibility period (October 15, 2015 to June 30, 2019). Data were descriptively analysed. Success rates, overall survival, and times to these events were descriptively analysed.

RESULTS

Data were abstracted from 218 patients (201, IA; 17, IM) who received isavuconazole as monotherapy (initiated as infusion, 52%; oral, 46%). Isavuconazole was initiated as primary therapy in 92 patients (42.2%) and salvage therapy in 121 patients (55.5%) (unknown for five patients). Mean (standard deviation) age was 56.8 (15.6) years, 66% were men and 62% had at least three comorbidities, most frequently haematologic malignancy (62%). Estimated clinical response rate at week 24 was 54.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.2-66.5%) for primary treatment and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.7-81.1%) for salvage therapy. Overall, 45 patients (21%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Serious AEs were experienced by 37 patients (17%), with seven related to isavuconazole; five patients (2.3%) discontinued isavuconazole monotherapy due to the serious AE. A total of 137 patients (63%) died, with 17 deaths (12.4%) related to their invasive fungal infection, 11 of whom initiated isavuconazole as salvage therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to the growing body of evidence that whether used as first-line therapy or after the failure of other antifungal therapies, isavuconazole appears to have a promising clinical response and a good safety profile as an antifungal agent in patients with varied underlying conditions.

Isavuconazole Versus Voriconazole as the First-line Therapy for Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Invasive Aspergillosis: Comparative Analysis of 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND

Isavuconazole (ISA) and voriconazole (VORI) are recommended as the first-line treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA). Despite theoretical advantages of ISA, both triazole agents have not been compared in solid organ transplant recipients.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of 2 retrospective multicenter cohorts of solid organ transplant recipients with invasive fungal disease (the SOTIS [Solid Organ Transplantation and ISavuconazole] and DiasperSOT [DIagnosis of ASPERgillosis in Solid Organ Transplantation] studies). We selected adult patients with proven/probable IA that were treated for ≥48 h with ISA (n = 57) or VORI (n = 77) as first-line therapy, either in monotherapy or combination regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical response at 12 wk from the initiation of therapy. Secondary outcomes comprised 12-wk all-cause and IA-attributable mortality and the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable in their demographics and major clinical and treatment-related variables. There were no differences in the rate of 12-wk clinical response between the ISA and VORI groups (59.6% versus 59.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-2.00). This result was confirmed after propensity score adjustment (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.32-2.05) and matching (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.31-2.04). All-cause and IA-attributable mortality were also similar. Patients in the ISA group were less likely to experience treatment-emergent adverse events (17.5% versus 37.7%; P = 0.011) and premature treatment discontinuation (8.8% versus 23.4%; P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Front-line treatment with ISA for posttransplant IA led to similar clinical outcomes than VORI, with better tolerability and higher treatment completion.

A global perspective of the changing epidemiology of invasive fungal disease and real-world experience with the use of isavuconazole

Global epidemiological data show that the incidence of invasive fungal disease (IFD) has increased in recent decades, with the rising frequency of infections caused by Aspergillus and Mucorales order species. The number and variety of patients at risk of IFD has also expanded, owing in part to advances in the treatment of hematologic malignancies and other serious diseases, including hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) and other therapies causing immune suppression. Isavuconazonium sulfate (active moiety: isavuconazole) is an advanced-generation triazole antifungal approved for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis that has demonstrated activity against a variety of yeasts, moulds, and dimorphic fungi. While real-world clinical experience with isavuconazole is sparse in some geographic regions, it has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in diverse patient populations, including those with multiple comorbidities who may have failed to respond to prior triazole antifungal therapy. Isavuconazole may be suitable for patients with IFD receiving concurrent QTc-prolonging therapy, as well as those on venetoclax or ruxolitinib. Data from clinical trials are not available to support the use of isavuconazole prophylactically for the prevention of IFD or for the treatment of endemic IFD, such as those caused by Histoplasma spp., but real-world evidence from case studies suggests that it has clinical utility in these settings. Isavuconazole is an option for patients at risk of IFD, particularly when the use of alternative antifungal therapies is not possible because of toxicities, pharmacokinetics, or drug interactions.

Economic impact of managing invasive mold disease with isavuconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B followed by posaconazole in Spain

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objective of this work was to compare the costs per adult patient, associated with intravenous isavuconazole (ISAV) followed by oral ISAV versus the regimen of liposomal amphotericin B followed by posaconazole (L-AMB→POSA) in the treatment of IFI. The comparison was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (SNS).

METHODS

As indirect comparisons have demonstrated similar efficacy between the comparators, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Drug acquisition, administration, hospitalization, laboratory tests and adverse events costs were evaluated from SNS perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes were performed.

RESULTS

Total costs per-patient were €24,715.54 with ISAV versus €29,753.53 with L-AMB→POSA, resulting in cost-savings per patient treated with ISAV of €5,037.99 (-16.9%). Treatment costs of IFI remained lower for ISAV than for L-AMB→POSA across all sensitivity analyses (-7,968.89€ to -326.59€), being treatment duration the most influential parameter.

CONCLUSION

According to the present model, the treatment of IFIs with ISAV would generate savings for the SNS compared to L-AMB→POSA. These savings are attributed to the shorter duration of IV treatment, reduced use of healthcare resources and lower costs associated with managing adverse effects when ISAV was employed.

Compare the efficacy of antifungal agents as primary therapy for invasive aspergillosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several antifungal agents are available for primary therapy in patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA). Although a few studies have compared the effectiveness of different antifungal agents in treating IA, there has yet to be a definitive agreement on the best choice. Herein, we perform a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of different antifungal agents in IA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials databases to find studies (both randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and observational) that reported on treatment outcomes with antifungal agents for patients with IA. The study quality was assessed using the revised tool for risk of bias and the Newcastle Ottawa scale, respectively. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to summarize the evidence on antifungal agents' efficacy (favourable response and mortality).

RESULTS

We found 12 studies (2428 patients) investigating 11 antifungal agents in the primary therapy of IA. There were 5 RCTs and 7 observational studies. When treated with monotherapy, isavuconazole was associated with the best probability of favourable response (SUCRA, 77.9%; mean rank, 3.2) and the best reduction mortality against IA (SUCRA, 69.1%; mean rank, 4.1), followed by voriconazole and posaconazole. When treated with combination therapy, Liposomal amphotericin B plus caspofungin was the therapy associated with the best probability of favourable response (SUCRA, 84.1%; mean rank, 2.6) and the best reduction mortality (SUCRA, 88.2%; mean rank, 2.2) against IA.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that isavuconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole may be the best antifungal agents as the primary therapy for IA. Liposomal amphotericin B plus caspofungin could be an alternative option.

Pharmacological management of invasive mold infections in solid organ transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients face an increased susceptibility to invasive fungal infection (IFI) due to filamentous fungi. Post-transplant invasive aspergillosis (IA) and mucormycosis are related to exceedingly high mortality rates and graft loss risk, and its management involve a unique range of clinical challenges.

AREAS COVERED

First, the current treatment recommendations for IA and mucormycosis among SOT recipients are critically reviewed, including the supporting evidence. Next, we discussed particular concerns in this patient population, such as drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between triazoles and post-transplant immunosuppression or treatment-related toxicity. The role for immunomodulatory and host-targeted therapies is also considered, as well as the theoretical impact of the intrinsic antifungal activity of calcineurin inhibitors. Finally, a personal opinion is made on future directions in the pharmacological approach to post-transplant IFI.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite relevant advances in the treatment of mold IFIs in the SOT setting, such as the incorporation of isavuconazole (with lower incidence of DDIs and better tolerability than voriconazole), there remains a large room for improvement in areas such as the position of combination therapy or the optimal strategy for the reduction of baseline immunosuppression. Importantly, future studies should define the specific contribution of newer antifungal agents and classes.

In vitro isavuconazole activity against Sporothrix brasiliensis suggests its efficacy in some severe sporotrichosis cases

Background: Sporothrix brasiliensis causes sporotrichosis, an important infection in some groups of patients. Aims: This work was designed to investigate the effects of isavuconazole against this species. Methods: An antifungal susceptibility test was performed to compare MIC values with other antifungal drugs used to treat sporotrichosis. A checkerboard assay was performed to understand isavuconazole interactions. Furthermore, isavuconazole growth inhibition on an itraconazole-resistant strain was tested. Results: Isavuconazole had similar MICs to other azoles against S. brasiliensis, presenting fungistatic activity. Isavuconazole did not interact in vitro with antifungals or immunosuppressive drugs and inhibited the growth of an itraconazole-resistant strain. Conclusion: Isavuconazole inhibits S. brasiliensis, its pharmacologic characteristics make it a candidate for patients with sporotrichosis and it may be useful to combat sporotrichosis caused by resistant isolates.

A review of prophylactic regimens to prevent invasive fungal infections in hematology patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

INTRODUCTION

The recent introduction of targeted therapies, including monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, and immunotherapies has improved the cure rate of hematologic patients. The implication of personalized treatment on primary antifungal prophylaxis will be discussed.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the literature for clinical trials reporting the rate of invasive fungal infections during targeted and cellular therapies and stem cell transplant, and the most recent international guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis.

EXPERT OPINION

As the use of personalized therapies is growing, the risk of invasive fungal infection has emerged in various clinical settings. Therefore, it is possible that the use of mold-active antifungal prophylaxis would spread in the next years and the risk of breakthrough infections would increase. The introduction of new antifungal agents in the clinical armamentarium is expected to reduce clinical unmet needs concerning the management of primary antifungal prophylaxis and improve outcome of patients.