Infections in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a major complication in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Newly diagnosed patients are at high risk of developing infection caused by encapsulated bacteria, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophylus influenzae.

METHOD AND RESULTS

However, once treatment is initiated, the spectrum of pathogens causing infection broadens, depending on the treatment regimens. With disease progression, cumulative immunosuppression occurs as a consequence of multiple treatment lines and the risk of infection further increases. On the other hand, the use of targeted therapies in the treatment of CLL have brought new risks of infection, with an increased incidence of invasive fungal diseases, particularly aspergillosis, in patients receiving Bruton kinase inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we review the epidemiology of infection in patients with CLL, taking into account the treatment regimen, and briefly discuss the management of infection.

Should patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with venetoclax-based regimens receive antifungal prophylaxis?

Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is a major complication in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive induction chemotherapy, and the use of anti-mold prophylaxis is considered standard of care. On the other hand, the use of anti-mold prophylaxis in AML patients receiving less-intensive venetoclax-based regimens is not well established, basically because the incidence of IFD may not be high enough to justify primary antifungal prophylaxis. Furthermore, dose adjustments in venetoclax are needed because of drug interactions with azoles. Finally, the use of azoles is associated with toxicity, including liver, gastrointestinal and cardiac (QT prolongation) toxicity. In a setting of low incidence of invasive fungal disease, the number needed to harm would be higher than the number needed to treat. In this paper we review the risk factors for IFD in AML patients receiving intensive chemotherapeutic regimens, the incidence and risk factors for IFD in patients receiving hypomethylating agents alone, and in patients receiving less-intensive venetoclax-based regimens. We also discuss potential problems with the concomitant use of azoles, and present our perspective on how to manage AML patients receiving venetoclax-based regimens without primary antifungal prophylaxis.

Evaluation of the knowledge of hematologists about the management of infectious complications in hematologic patients

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a serious complication among patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) and in hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. In most centers, the management of these complications is provided by the hematologist in person, thus demanding a knowledge of basic aspects of infection.

METHODS

To evaluate the knowledge of the hematologist on infections, we invited clinicians to answer two questionnaires with 20 multiple-choice questions covering epidemiology, prophylaxis, diagnosis and treatment of infection in patients with HMs and HCT.

RESULTS

We obtained 289 answers: 223 in survey 1 (febrile neutropenia) and 66 in survey 2 (infection in HCT). The median score was 5.0 in both surveys (range 0.5 - 9.0). In survey 1, the questions with the lowest number of correct answers were Q3 (8%), concerning the cefepime dose, and Q1 (9%), which asked about the epidemiologic link between the use of high dose cytarabine and viridans streptococcal bacteremia. In survey 2, two questions about cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection had the lowest percentage of correct answers (Q4, 12% and Q11, 18%). Clinicians attending to HCT recipients had higher scores, compared to clinicians attending to patients with HM only (median score of 5.0 and 4.5, p = 0.03, in survey 1 and 6.0 and 4.5, p = 0.001, in survey 2). In both surveys staff clinicians, residents and professors had similar scores.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in Brazil assessing the knowledge of hematologists on infectious complications. The low median score overall indicates an urgent need for continuous education. Such initiatives will eventually result in better patient care.

EQUAL Fusariosis score 2021: An European Confederation of Medical Mycology score derived from current guidelines to measure QUALity of the clinical management of invasive fusariosis

BACKGROUND

Invasive fusariosis is a serious infection affecting mostly patients with haematologic malignancies and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a scoring tool that evaluates guideline adherence in the management of invasive fusariosis.

METHODS

We reviewed two guidelines, provided by the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM), and selected the strongest recommendations for management quality as the bases for the scoring tool.

RESULTS

We reviewed the recommendations regarding primary and secondary prophylaxis, diagnostics procedures (images, blood cultures, biopsy of skin lesions with direct examination, culture and histopathology, species identification, antifungal susceptibility tests and antigen detection), treatment choices and follow-up procedures. The tool comprises 18 items, with a maximum of 24 points.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQUAL score Fusariosis is a tool that may help clinicians to measure guidelines adherence.

Early versus Late Fluconazole Prophylaxis in Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Candidemia is a major complication in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole decreases the incidence of this complication. We compared 2 strategies for fluconazole prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancy undergoing autologous HCT between 1997 and 2017. From 1997 to 2003, fluconazole prophylaxis (400 mg/d) was given to all HCTs, started with the conditioning regimen (early prophylaxis), and given until neutrophil engraftment or the need of non-prophylactic antifungal therapy. From 2004 on, fluconazole (400mg daily) was started only if (and when) the patient developed oral mucositis (late prophylaxis). Among 571 HCT, 270 received early prophylaxis, 112 received late prophylaxis, and 189 did not receive fluconazole because they did not develop oral mucositis. The incidence of candidemia was 1.8% in the early prophylaxis group, 0% in the late prophylaxis group, and 1.1% in the no prophylaxis group (P = .31). Among patients receiving fluconazole, the median duration of prophylaxis was 17 days (range, 6-36 days) in the early prophylaxis group and 6 days (range, 2-16 days) in the late prophylaxis group (P < .001). The initiation of fluconazole prophylaxis guided by the occurrence of oral mucositis (late prophylaxis) was as good as early fluconazole prophylaxis.