A randomized study to compare oral fluconazole to amphotericin B in the prevention of fungal infections in patients with acute leukaemia

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.

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.

Weekly use of fluconazole as prophylaxis in haematological patients at risk for invasive candidiasis

Background

The goal was to determine whether one medical centres’ unique antifungal prophylactic regimen for patients at high risk for invasive candidiasis because of their haematological malignancies, haematopoietic stem cell transplants, or high-dose chemotherapy might lead ultimately to a higher incidence of infection, to increasing fluconazole resistance, or to a shift in the predominant strain of Candida in invasive fungal episodes.

Methods

Data were collected retrospectively, for a ten-year period from ONKO-KISS surveillance records, and from hospital, medical, and pharmacy records and then evaluated with respect to incidence of fungal infection episodes, emergence of antifungal drug resistance, and predominance of specific Candida strains in isolate cultures. Fisher’s exact test and linear regression were used to compare minimum inhibitory concentrations and to compare the incidence of different Candida isolates, respectively.

Results

The incidence of infection remained quite stable over 10 years with a median of 0.67 episodes/1000 bed days. Overall, Candida glabrata was the predominant species with 29% followed by C. albicans and C. krusei (14% each). No significant increment of non-albicans Candida species with decreased fluconazole susceptibility was perceived over this decade.

Conclusions

Once weekly administration of 400 mg of fluconazole to prevent candidaemia appears to have no negative impact on the efficacy as a prophylaxis when compared to standard of care (400 mg of fluconazole daily).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0573-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Amphotericin B versus fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or empirically to patients with persistent fever.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of fluconazole and amphotericin B on morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials (3798 patients, 381 deaths) were included. In two large three-armed trials, results for amphotericin B were combined with results for nystatin in a 'polyene' group. Because nystatin is an ineffective drug in these circumstances, this approach creates a bias in favour of fluconazole. Furthermore, most patients were randomised to oral amphotericin B, which is poorly absorbed and poorly documented. There was overlap among the 'polyene' trials but we were unable to obtain any information from the trial authors or from Pfizer, the manufacturer of fluconazole, to clarify these issues. There were no significant differences in effect between fluconazole and amphotericin B, but the confidence intervals were wide. More patients dropped out of the study when they received amphotericin B, but as none of the trials were blinded decisions on premature interruption of therapy could have been biased. Furthermore, amphotericin B was not given under optimal circumstances, with premedication to reduce infusion-related toxicity, slow infusion, and with fluid, potassium and magnesium supplements to prevent nephrotoxicity. The major harms were hepatic impairment and gastrointestinal adverse effects with fluconazole and infusion-related toxicity, renal impairment and gastrointestinal adverse effects with amphotericin B. For the 2011 and 2014 updates no additional trials were identified for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amphotericin B has been disfavoured in several of the trials through their design or analysis, or both. Since intravenous amphotericin B is the only antifungal agent for which an effect on mortality has been shown, and since it is considerably cheaper than fluconazole, it should be the preferred agent.

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 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).

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antifungal treatment for patients on chemotherapy

Invasive fungal infections are fatal complications for patients on chemotherapy, and antifungal prophylactic treatment has been commonly recommended. Because its clinical and economic impact is not well known, we evaluated cost-effectiveness of anti-fungal treatment for patients who were neutropoenic as a result of chemotherapy. We constructed a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old patients with acute myelogenic leukemia to evaluate years of life survived (YLS), costs (US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (US$/YLS). The following treatment strategies for fungal infections were compared: (1) prophylactic fluconazole strategy: oral fluconazole administration concurrently with chemotherapy; (2) empirical amphotericin B strategy: empirical intravenous amphotericin B administration at the point where fever is detected; and (3) no prophylaxis strategy: intravenous micafangin administration at the point where fungal infections is diagnosed. Baseline analyses showed that prophylactic fluconazole strategy involved higher costs but also longer YLSs (25,900 US$ and 24.08 YLS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of prophylactic fluconazole strategy was 625 US$/YLS compared to no prophylaxis strategy, and 652 US$/YLS compared to empirical amphotericin B strategy. Baseline result was found to be robust through sensitivity analyses. Our study showed that concurrent administration of oral fluconazole during induction chemotherapy appears to ensure clinical benefits together with acceptable cost-effectiveness.

Fluconazole for the management of invasive candidiasis: where do we stand after 15 years?

Candida spp. are responsible for most of the fungal infections in humans. Available since 1990, fluconazole is well established as a leading drug in the setting of prevention and treatment of mucosal and invasive candidiasis. Fluconazole displays predictable pharmacokinetics and an excellent tolerance profile in all groups, including the elderly and children. Fluconazole is a fungistatic drug against yeasts and lacks activity against moulds. Candida krusei is intrinsically resistant to fluconazole, and other species, notably Candida glabrata, often manifest reduced susceptibility. Emergence of azole-resistant strains as well as discovery of new antifungal drugs (new triazoles and echinocandins) have raised important questions about its use as a first line drug. The aim of this review is to summarize the main available data on the position of fluconazole in the prophylaxis or curative treatment of invasive Candida spp. infections. Fluconazole is still a major drug for antifungal prophylaxis in the setting of transplantation (solid organ and bone marrow), intensive care unit, and in neutropenic patients. Prophylactic fluconazole still has a place in HIV-positive patients in viro-immunological failure with recurrent mucosal candidiasis. Fluconazole can be used in adult neutropenic patients with systemic candidiasis, as long as the species identified is a priori susceptible. Among non-neutropenic patients with candidaemia fluconazole is one of the first line drugs for susceptible species. Cases reports and uncontrolled studies have also reported its efficacy in the setting of osteoarthritis, endophthalmitis, meningitis, endocarditis and peritonitis caused by Candida spp. among immunocompetent adults. In paediatrics, fluconazole is a well tolerated and major prophylactic drug for high-risk neonates, as well as an alternative treatment for neonatal candidiasis. Importantly 15 years after its introduction in the antifungal armamentarium, fluconazole is still a first line treatment option in several cases of invasive candidiasis. Its prophylactic use should however be limited to selected high-risk patients to limit the risk of emergence of azole-resistant strains.

Profilaxis de las infecciones en el paciente neutropénico

Infections are the main cause of death in neutropenic patients and are related to the degree and duration of neutropenia, the underlying disease, and the treatments received. To reduce the number of these infections, prophylactic strategies have been proposed. These strategies aim to prevent adquisition through contact, inhalation, or the gastrointestinal tract. Intestinal decontamination through fluoroquinolones has reduced Gram-negative infections but this strategy should not be used indiscriminately and should be reserved for high risk patients. Fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis reduces mortality but does not modify the incidence of invasive aspergillosis. Cytomegalovirus infection should be prevented in patients with negative serology; in high risk patients with positive serology, monitoring and preemptive treatment with ganciclovir or foscarnet is recommended. Hematopoietic growth factors reduce the duration of neutropenia and could reduce mortality from infection.

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.

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.

Early infections in adults undergoing matched related and matched unrelated/mismatched donor stem cell transplantation: a comparison of incidence

We compared the incidence of early infectious complications between matched related (MR) and matched unrelated/mismatched (MU/MM) allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) recipients in a single centre over a 6-year period in 214 consecutive adult patients. Early infections were defined as occurring from hospital admission for SCT until discharge. One hundred and fifty-nine patients received an allograft from MR donors and 55 patients received MU/MM allo-SCT. One hundred and eight of 214 patients had 147 episodes of fever. Ninety-three episodes (63%) were due to clinically or microbiologically documented infections and 54 episodes (37%) to fever not related to infection. Patients undergoing MU/MM transplantation tended to have more documented infections compared to recipients of MR allo-SCT (P = 0.06). Significantly more MU/MM transplant recipients had breakthrough infections with Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1, P = 0.003), and more CMV reactivation (P = 0.015). The mortality rate in all patients during hospitalisation post-SCT was 6.3% in MR and 18.2% in MU/MM allo-SCT recipients (P = 0.009). Early mortality was associated with infection in 70% of the patients, with a similar distribution between MR and MU/MM transplant recipients. However, MU/MM transplant recipients had significantly more early deaths due to toxic causes (P < 0.001). We conclude that early post-transplant MU/MM transplant recipients tend to have more documented infections, and have significantly more breakthrough infections with HSV-1 and more CMV reactivation. MU/MM transplant recipients are at higher risk of early mortality, especially due to toxic causes.

Antifungal prophylaxis for severely neutropenic chemotherapy recipients: a meta analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The overall clinical efficacy of the azoles antifungal agents and low-dose intravenous amphotericin B for antifungal chemoprophylaxis in patients with malignant disease who have severe neutropenia remains unclear.

METHODS

Randomized-controlled trials of azoles (fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and miconazole) or intravenous amphotericin B formulations compared with placebo/no treatment or polyene-based controls in severely neutropenic chemotherapy recipients were evaluated using meta-analytical techniques.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials that included 7014 patients (study agents, 3515 patients; control patients, 3499 patients) were analyzed. Overall, there were reductions in the use of parenteral antifungal therapy (prophylaxis success: odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.48-0.68; relative risk reduction [RRR], 19%; number requiring treatment for this outcome [NNT], 10 patients), superficial fungal infection (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.43; RRR, 61%; NNT, 12 patients), invasive fungal infection (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; RRR, 56%; NNT, 22 patients), and fungal infection-related mortality (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.82; RRR, 47%; NNT, 52 patients). Invasive aspergillosis was unaffected (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.62-1.44). Although overall mortality was not reduced (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.03), subgroup analyses showed reduced mortality in studies of patients who had prolonged neutropenia (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) or who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99). The multivariate metaregression analyses identified HSCT, prolonged neutropenia, acute leukemia with prolonged neutropenia, and higher azole dose as predictors of treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Antifungal prophylaxis reduced morbidity, as evidenced by reductions in the use of parenteral antifungal therapy, superficial fungal infection, and invasive fungal infection, as well as reducing fungal infection-related mortality. These effects were most pronounced in patients with malignant disease who had prolonged neutropenia and HSCT recipients.

Amphotericin B versus fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or to patients with persistent fever.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of fluconazole and amphotericin B on morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library (November 2001). Letters, abstracts, and unpublished trials. The industry and authors were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection, colonisation, use of additional (escape) antifungal therapy and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were extracted by both authors independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3760 patients, 341 deaths) were included. In 3 large 3-armed trials, results for amphotericin B were combined with results for nystatin in a "polyene" group. Because nystatin is an ineffective drug in these circumstances, this approach creates a bias in favour of fluconazole. Furthermore, most patients were randomised to oral amphotericin B, which is poorly absorbed and poorly documented. It was unclear whether there was overlap among the "polyene" trials. We were unable to obtain any information to clarify these issues from the trial authors or from Pfizer, the manufacturer of fluconazole. There were no significant differences in effect between fluconazole and amphotericin B, but the confidence intervals were wide. More patients dropped out of the study when they received amphotericin B, but as none of the trials were blinded, decisions on premature interruption of therapy could have been biased. Furthermore, amphotericin B was rarely given under optimal circumstances, with premedication to reduce infusion-related toxicity, slow infusion, and with potassium and magnesium supplements to prevent nephrotoxicity.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Amphotericin B had been disfavoured in several of the trials through their design or analysis. Since intravenous amphotericin B is the only antifungal agent for which there is good evidence suggesting an effect on mortality and is considerably cheaper than fluconazole, it should be preferred.

The combination of oral amphotericin B with azoles prevents the emergence of resistant Candida species in neutropenic patients

The role of antifungal prophylaxis remains controversial and concerns exist that the use of azoles may potentiate the emergence of resistant Candida species. We used a strategy of combining the latest azole/triazole with oral amphotericin B to reduce this risk. We analysed data on Candida colonization and candidaemia in neutropenic patients from four prophylaxis periods (1985/6: ketoconazole and amphotericin B suspension; 1991/2 & 1997: fluconazole and amphotericin B suspension; 1998/9: itraconazole) to look for evidence of the emergence of potentially resistant species. Overall, the percentage of patients colonized with Candida fell significantly (69.3%, 57.5%, 43.2% and 46%, respectively, P < 0.001) due to a decrease in colonization with C. albicans (49%, 23.1%, 22.2% and 25.2%, respectively, P < 0.001). However, in 1998/9, increased colonization, particularly with C. glabrata in the lower gastrointestinal tract, was noted to coincide with the omission of oral amphotericin B. Despite an increasing population of 'high risk' patients, the incidence of candidaemia has not changed significantly (2%, 1.4%, 1.2% and 2% respectively). However, species causing candidaemia have changed, with resistant organisms now predominating. Our findings support the use of azole prophylaxis although, in view of the trends noted when itraconazole was used alone, we would recommend the additional use of oral amphotericin B.

Management of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: more doubts than certainties?

An evidence based approach to prophylaxis and therapy of invasive fungal infections depends on the knowledge of epidemiology and of risk factors for these infections, as well as on the appreciation of merits and limitation of the available clinical trials. A progressive increase in the incidence of systemic fungal infections, most often caused by Candida and Aspergillus, in patients with cancer and neutropenia has been observed in recent years. This increase of systemic fungal infections recognizes a multifactorial origin, including host defense impairment and type of underlying disease. The various combinations of these different risk factors make the patients affected by systemic fungal infections a non-homogeneous population and, therefore, the transferability of the results of many clinical trials from one population to another is difficult. Clinical trials on prophylaxis and treatment of systemic fungal infections moreover have many limitations: they are often of small size, are frequently non-comparative, enrol population at different risk for infection, use different criteria to define success or failure of therapy. These limitations make the interpretation of the trial results difficult. As randomised clinical trials and metanalysis are considered the most valuable sources of information on new treatments, it dearly appears that the mentioned difficulties in interpreting available data from the literature may expose patients to an increased risk of receiving an inappropriate or non-optimal treatment. Better designed studies are needed to clarify the many controversial questions in antifungal prophylaxis and therapy.

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

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of and tolerance to oral fluconazole and intraconazole in preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.

PATIENTS

213 consecutive, afebrile adult patients treated with or without autologous stem cell transplantation for haematological malignancies.

METHODS

A randomised, double blind, single centre study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole 50 mg or itraconazole 100 mg, both twice daily in identical capsules. An intention to treat analysis was performed on 202 patients, 101 in each group.

RESULTS

Microbiologically documented systemic fungal infections occurred in four patients in each group. Clinical fungal infection was thought to be present in seven recipients of fluconazole and four of itraconazole. In all 202 patients, 29 proceeded to intravenous amphotericin (amphotericin B), 16 in the fluconazole group and 13 in the itraconazole group. Superficial fungal infection was seen only in three non-compliant patients in the fluconazole group. All these infections were oral. No major differences were noted in the isolates of fungi in mouth washes and fecal samples. Overall mortality was 8.9% (18 deaths; seven in the fluconazole group, 11 in the itraconazole group). Mortality from microbiologically and clinically documented fungal infection was 4.5% (nine deaths; three in the fluconazole group, six in the itraconazole group). Median time to suspected or proven fungal infection was 16 days in both groups. None of these comparisons reached statistical significance (p < 0.05). No major clinical toxicity was noted and compliance was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

In neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies with or without autologous stem cell transplantation, fluconazole and itraconazole in low doses result in a similar low frequency of fungal disease. Fluconazole may be the preferable drug because of the smaller number of capsules and lack of need for timing relative to meals.

A randomized comparison of fluconazole with amphotericin B as empiric anti-fungal agents in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia

PURPOSE

Several studies have documented the efficacy of amphotericin B as empiric antifungal therapy in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. Amphotericin, however, is a toxic drug. Fluconazole has broad-spectrum antifungal activity with an excellent safety profile. Although prophylactic use of fluconazole is widespread, its efficacy as an empiric antifungal agent has not been extensively investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomly assigned 106 patients with absolute neutropenia (< or = 500 cells microL) and persistent fever of undetermined origin (> 38 degrees C) despite 1 week of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy to receive either fluconazole 400 mg orally daily or amphotericin B 0.5 mg/kg/day. Patients with obvious invasive fungal infections were excluded, as were those with abnormal renal or hepatic function. Success was defined as defervescence with the initially assigned antifungal regimen without development of clinically evident invasive fungal infection.

RESULTS

Six patients were excluded from the analysis, mostly because they did not have severe neutropenia. Forty-eight patients received amphotericin B, and 52 received fluconazole. Baseline clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters as well as duration of neutropenia (7.7 versus 6.9 days), duration of fever (7.8 versus 8.1 days), and duration of hospitalization (10.4 versus 8.3 days) were similar between those receiving amphotericin and fluconazole. Treatment success rates and mortality rates were similar in the two groups: 22 (46%) patients in the amphotericin group and 29 (56%) patients in the fluconazole group responded successfully to therapy (P = 0.3), whereas 16 (33%) patients in the amphotericin group and 14 (27%) patients in the fluconazole group died during hospitalization (P = 0.5). Adverse events such as chills and fever (4 versus 1), bronchospasm (2 versus none), severe hypokalemia (25 versus 12) and nephrotoxicity (9 versus 3) were more frequently observed in patients receiving amphotericin. Adverse prognostic factors included prolonged duration of neutropenia and pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that fluconazole is an equally effective but less toxic alternative to amphotericin B as empiric antifungal therapy in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia.

Prevention of infection in immunocompromised hosts

The prevention of infection in patients with cancer has changed tremendously over the last decade, but remains in evolution. Despite many clinical trials examining the role of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis, there is still discussion among physicians about not only which patients require prophylaxis, but also the optimal regimen. Nevertheless, many of these regimens offer the hope to prevent infection in patients with underlying neoplastic diseases. There is no therapy that is uniformly effective in all settings. This is generally due to the severity of the defects in host defenses and the virulence of the microorganism. Hopefully, the future will hold many new therapeutic options to help prevent infection in patients with cancer.

Antifungal prophylaxis during neutropenia and immunodeficiency

Fungal infections represent a major source of morbidity and mortality in patients with almost all types of immunodeficiencies. These infections may be nosocomial (aspergillosis) or community acquired (cryptococcosis), or both (candidiasis). Endemic mycoses such as histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, and penicilliosis may infect many immunocompromised hosts in some geographic areas and thereby create major public health problems. With the wide availability of oral azoles, antifungal prophylactic strategies have been extensively developed. However, only a few well-designed studies involving strict criteria have been performed, mostly in patients with hematological malignancies or AIDS. In these situations, the best dose and duration of administration of the antifungal drug often remain to be determined. In high-risk neutropenic or bone marrow transplant patients, fluconazole is effective for the prevention of superficial and/or systemic candidal infections but is not always able to prolong overall survival and potentially selects less susceptible or resistant Candida spp. Primary prophylaxis against aspergillosis remains investigative. At present, no standard general recommendation for primary antifungal prophylaxis can be proposed for AIDS patients or transplant recipients. However, for persistently immunocompromised patients who previously experienced a noncandidal systemic fungal infection, prolonged suppressive antifungal therapy is often indicated to prevent a relapse. Better strategies for controlling immune deficiencies should also help to avoid some potentially life-threatening deep mycoses. When prescribing antifungal prophylaxis, physicians should be aware of the potential emergence of resistant strains, drug-drug interactions, and the cost. Well-designed, randomized, multicenter clinical trials in high-risk immunocompromised hosts are urgently needed to better define how to prevent severe invasive mycoses.

[Preventive antimycotic therapy of neutropenic and immunosuppressed patients]

Fungal infections are of increasing importance in severely neutropenic and immunosuppressed patients because of their high incidence and their high mortality once systemic dissemination has occurred. Various prophylactic strategies have been developed that include environmental measures as well as topical and systemic antimycotic prophylaxis. In this review the causative pathogens and patients at risk for developing fungal infections will be identified. Specific strategies will be discussed for each patient population and suggestions made for areas of future research.

Antifungal Prophylaxis in Severely Neutropenic Patients: How Much Fluconazole is Necessary?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of low dose fluconazole treatment for the prevention of yeast colonization and infection in severely neutropenic patients. METHODS: An open randomized trial, comparing fluconazole (100 mg per day) with nystatin (800,000 IU per day), in a University Hospital setting. RESULTS: Antifungal prophylaxis was given during the period of neutropenia, defined as less than 500 polymorphonuclear cells (PMN)/mm3). Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to fluconazole and 33 to nystatin treatment groups. New oropharyngeal colonizations were significantly reduced by fluconazole (P=0.005), and oropharyngeal infections occurred less frequently in the fluconazole group (3% versus 16%, P=0.07). Stool colonization was identical between both groups. Systemic fungal infections were rare; one fluconazole patient had pulmonary aspergillosis and one nystatin patient developped Candida pseudotropicalis fungemia. Empiric amphotericin B was given with the same frequency in both groups. No side effects were associated with fluconazole. However, the administration of nystatin became impossible for three patients because of vomiting and lack of compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Fluconazole (100 mg per day) is more effective than nystatin for the prevention of oropharyngeal yeast colonization. Comparison with results in the literature suggests that a 100-mg dose of fluconazole has similar effects to 200 or 400 mg per day.

Australian Dental Research Fund Trebitsch Scholarship. Efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis in bone marrow transplantation

Oral candidal infection is a common problem in bone marrow transplantation. This prospective study compared the effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis with topical antifungals (nystatin and amphotericin B suspensions) versus oral fluconazole in 196 patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Oral candidosis occurred frequently in the group receiving topical antifungals (61/113, 54%), but was rare in the group receiving fluconazole (6/83, 7%). The difference in efficacy between the two groups was highly significant (p < 0.00001). There was no difference in the incidence of suspected systemic fungal infection between the two groups. While nausea was a problem with antifungal suspensions, no significant adverse reactions to fluconazole occurred. Because of greater efficacy in preventing oral candidosis and better patient tolerance, oral fluconazole is preferred to antifungal suspensions for prophylactic use in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation.

Comparison of fluconazole with oral polyenes in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients. A prospective, randomized, single-center study

The goal of this prospective randomized single-center study was the comparison of safety and efficacy of high-dose oral/intravenous fluconazole (400 mg daily) (group A) with oral nystatin plus miconazole inhalations (group B) in the prevention of fungal infections on a hemato-oncological isolation Ward. Of 157 patients admitted to the isolation ward during the study period only 90 (57%) were eligible for randomization; 22 (14%) had a fungal infection at admission. Of the 90 randomized patients, 89 were evaluable, 43 in group A and 46 in group B. The age, sex, diagnosis, planned therapy and risk factors for fungal infections at admission as well as the duration of neutropenia were in the same proportions in both groups. Oral thrush and mucocutaneous candidiasis were prevented in all patients of both groups, and 29 patients (32%: 17 in group A, 12 in group B) were discharged after successful prophylaxis (NS). Empiric amphotericin B was given according to predetermined criteria to 45 patients (51%: 23 group A, 22 group B; NS). Fluconazole significantly delayed the time before the start of intravenous amphotericin B. It was begun after a median of 10 days (0-45 days, range) of neutropenia below 0.5 x 10(9) granulocytes/l in group A and 7.5 days (0-26, range) in group B (P < 0.05). The duration of successful prophylaxis was significantly longer in group A (26 days median) than in group B (21 days, median) (P < 0.05). Systematic fungal infection was documented in 3 patients (1 group A, 2 group B; NS).

Orointestinal yeast colonization of paediatric bone marrow transplant recipients: surveillance by quantitative culture and serology

We quantitatively studied the orointestinal yeast colonization of 15 consecutive paediatric patients who underwent 16 bone marrow transplantations (BMT). Cultures were performed initially, longitudinally weekly during the period of aplasia (in-patient treatment) and, if possible, also during out-patient follow-up. With one exception, all patients received fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis. Patients remained free of yeasts during the complete observation period only in six out of 16 cases (38%). Non-albicans species of Candida were isolated in six out of 16 cases (38%), mainly C. glabrata (five out of 16; 31%). All of these patients had undergone allogeneic BMT. In one case, there was indirect evidence of systemic invasion by C. glabrata. Even combined prophylaxis with fluconazole and and amphotericin B suspension could not reliably prevent yeast colonization but this combination at present appears to be the optimal regime. Regular concomitant Candida serology (determination of specific antibodies by three methods) proved to be a valuable additional surveillance method.

Selection of Candida glabrata in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients receiving fluconazole

We observed an alarmingly high rate (5/16 patients; 31.3%) of orointestinal colonization with Candida glabrata--often in high numbers--in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients receiving fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis. This selection is probably due to the intrinsically low susceptibility of C. glabrata to fluconazole.

Oral azole drugs as systemic antifungal therapy

The oral azole drugs--ketoconazole, fluconazole, and itraconazole--represent a major advance in systemic antifungal therapy. Among the three, fluconazole has the most attractive pharmacologic profile, including the capacity to produce high concentrations of active drug in cerebrospinal fluid and urine. Ketoconazole, the first oral azole to be introduced, is less well tolerated than either fluconazole or itraconazole and is associated with more clinically important toxic effects, including hepatitis and inhibition of steroid hormone synthesis. However, ketoconazole is less expensive than fluconazole and itraconazole--an especially important consideration for patients receiving long-term therapy. All three drugs are effective alternatives to amphotericin B and flucytosine as therapy for selected systemic mycoses. Ketoconazole and itraconazole are effective in patients with the chronic, indolent forms of the endemic mycoses, including blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, and histoplasmosis; itraconazole is also effective in patients with sporotrichosis. Fluconazole is useful in the common forms of fungal meningitis--namely, coccidioidal and cryptococcal meningitis. In addition, fluconazole is effective for selected patients with serious candida syndromes such as candidemia, and itraconazole is the most effective of the azoles for the treatment of aspergillosis.

Efficacy of itraconazole in the prevention of fungal infections among neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies and intensive chemotherapy. A double blind, placebo controlled study

We studied the efficacy and safety of itraconazole for the prevention of fungal infection in neutropenic patients given cytotoxic chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either itraconazole (200 mg bd) or placebo in addition to oral amphotericin B until the patient either developed fungal infection or had completed antileukemic treatment. Forty six patients (83 neutropenic episodes) treated with itraconazole and 46 placebo treated patients (84 neutropenic episodes) were evaluable. No specific toxicity was noted. Nine fungal infections developed in the itraconazole group, of which four were histologically or microbiologically proven and 15 in the patients given placebo (eight proven) (p < 0.12). All these patients received IV amphotericin B. The incidence of Candida albicans infections tended to be lower in the itraconazole group, but overall, there was no measurable improvement in the prevention of fungal infections and mortality by itraconazole.

Comparative study of the efficacy of fluconazole versus amphotericin B/flucytosine in surgical patients with systemic mycoses

In an open, prospective, randomized study, the efficacy of fluconazole was compared with that of the combination amphotericin B/flucytosine. Forty surgical patients with deep-seated mycoses were included in the study. Absolute inclusion criteria were histological finding of fungi in a tissue sample taken during surgery from e.g. peritoneum, pancreas, lungs or trachea, a positive blood culture or candida lesion of the eye. According to the random list 20 patients received up to 0.5 mg amphotericin B per kg body weight in combination with 3 x 2.5 g flucytosine (5-FC) daily and 20 patients received fluconazole, 400 mg on the first day and then 300 mg daily. The two therapy groups were comparable in terms of age, sex and underlying diseases. Gastrointestinal perforations (27 times) were the most frequent underlying diseases. Candida albicans was the fungus most frequently detected microbiologically (34 times). The pathogens were eliminated from 12 patients in the fluconazole group and 14 patients in the combination group. The median elimination time was 8.5 days in the fluconazole group and 5.5 days in the amphotericin B/5-FC group. Six patients died in the fluconazole group, whereas five patients died in the comparison group. Side effects which necessitated switching of therapy occurred twice in the combination group. In deep-seated candida mycoses, surgical patients receiving the combination therapy with amphotericin B/5-FC showed an earlier elimination than patients on monotherapy with fluconazole. With respect to cure rates there was no difference between these two regimens.

Fluconazole versus oral amphotericin B in preventing fungal infection in chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies

This open, randomized, controlled study was designed to assess the efficacy of fluconazole in comparison with oral amphotericin B in preventing clinically suspected fungal infection. A total of 178 chemotherapy-induced neutropenic episodes expected to last more than 10 days in 51 patients with haematological malignancies were randomly treated with fluconazole, 200 mg once a day, or amphotericin B, 800 mg three times a day orally. Defining the end points as (1) documented fungal infection or (2) use of empiric intravenous amphotericin B for suspected fungal infection including an episode of fever lasting more than 5 days or fever developed during the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, no difference was observed between the two groups.

Rhinocerebral zygomycosis in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

We describe a patient with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia who developed rhinocerebral zygomycosis during the aplastic phase induced by antineoplastic chemotherapy. The patient was treated with fluconazole intravenously (400 mg daily) for 30 days and underwent surgical debridement. As a result of this treatment a complete remission of the zygomycosis-associated symptoms was observed. The possibility of treating zygomycosis with fluconazole is discussed.

Fluconazole in the management of endophthalmitis in disseminated candidosis of heroin addicts

Seven heroin addicts were treated with fluconazole for endophthalmitis. All the patients had cutaneous lesions: deep-seated scalp nodules and/or pustulosis in hairy zones. One patient had an abscess at the venipuncture site. Candida albicans was isolated from all the extraocular sites in all the patients. Five patients were treated with 400 mg of intravenous fluconazole on the first day, followed by 200 mg (i.v.) for one week and finally 200 mg daily orally for a further two weeks. Two patients were treated exclusively with oral fluconazole (400 mg on the first day, followed by 200 mg daily for three consecutive weeks). Tolerance to fluconazole was good and it was not necessary to stop treatment for any patient. All the cutaneous lesions stabilized and healed. The eye lesions cleared completely in all cases, except in one patient in whom vitrectomy was indicated, and in whom there was a poor response to the exclusive treatment with fluconazole and associated corticosteroids.